Junk food ban cost

Andrew Boff: What is your assessment of the cost to date of the junk food ban?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. In London almost 40% of children aged ten and 11 are overweight or obese. This is amongst the highest rates in Europe. The issue is even more prevalent in the poorest parts of our city, with child obesity twice as high in the most deprived parts of London like Barking and Dagenham compared to the more affluent parts like Richmond. This epidemic is costing the National Health Service (NHS) billions of pounds every year.
It has been only three months since the Transport for London (TfL) advertising policy around unhealthy food was introduced. As advertising spend fluctuates year on year depending on wider market conditions, it is far too early to tell if there has been any impact on overall revenue, but it is good to see major retailers continued to advertise on the TfL network through amending their advertising copy or switching to advertising healthier products.
As well as advertisers adapting to the policy, this policy has been welcomed by public health experts and food campaigners and is leading the way globally. Haringey Council has already adopted the TfL policy and other local authorities, United Kingdom (UK) cities, devolved administrations and cities across the world are looking to replicate it. The Government also recently announced its own proposals to restrict advertising of high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) food and drink on TV and online before 9.00pm. These proposals use the same Public Health England nutrient profile model TfL is using.
I have always said that TfL advertising restrictions are not a silver bullet. That is why I am taking action on a number of different fronts in London. I have announced proposals to restrict the opening of new hot-food takeaways within 400 metres of schools, created the first Child Obesity Task Force and, through the Healthy Catering Commitment, my team is working with boroughs to deliver healthier fast-food takeaways. This approach will soon be rolled out across other food retailers through the Good Food Retail Action Plans that I am funding across five boroughs. I have also introduced the new Healthy Early Years programme and I continue to support the Healthy Schools programme. We have published a new Sport and Physical Activity Strategy and continue to support initiatives like the Daily Mile and installing water fountains across the city. Given the £6billion a year cost to the NHS and the health impacts on children’s lives, we cannot afford not to take bold action to tackle this epidemic.

Andrew Boff: MrMayor, the summary of that is that you have no costs to date? Is that correct?

Sadiq Khan: As I have said, it is far too early to give an assessment after three months of the cost consequences to TfL.

Andrew Boff: You did mention substitutions. Why are there adverts for huge buckets of KFC fried chicken, McDonald’s chicken burgers and Burger King Whopper burgers still being advertised three months after the ban was supposed to have come into force?

Sadiq Khan: TfL uses the nutrient profile model devised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), supported by Public Health England, and used by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and also the Office of Communications (Ofcom). If there are criticisms of things that are being advertised that you would deem not to be HFSS, that is one of the reasons why we will have the review after a year. We are also looking to revise our guidance because one of the things the nutrient profile model does not do is it does not talk about portion size. The formula is nutrients per 100 grams. That is one of the reasons why things that to laypeople may seem to be HFSS are still being advertised. We will make representations to them in relation to reviewing their policies.

Andrew Boff: You think advertising KFC to children is OK?

Sadiq Khan: Foods that are HFSS and targeted towards children are not OK. We are making representations to the FSA in relation to amending the nutrient profile model when it comes to it doing so over the course of the next few months.

Andrew Boff: Is it what you intended in the policy that, for example, Burger King whoppers and McDonald’s chicken burgers were OK and were part of the test?

Sadiq Khan: No. What we did not want to do was to duplicate what has already been undertaken. Separately, the FSA devised a nutrient profile model that the ASA used‑‑

Andrew Boff: You are happy with the outcome of the policy that KFC passes the criteria? You are OK with that?

Sadiq Khan: We used the profile used by others, including the ASA and Ofcom. We have concerns in relation to the fact that the profile model does not talk about portion sizes. The formula is nutrients per 100 grams. We are making representations to the FSA to change some of the guidance in relation to the nutrient profile model. I am sure the ASA and Ofcom will be supporting us.

Andrew Boff: Could those representations not have been made at the time that the policy was introduced? Back in November and December last year [2018], we as a group advised you not to bring in this junk food ban so quickly. The advertising industry also recommended to you that you should wait a while and consult further in order that you did not get anomalies like this. Do you regret so hastily entering into a policy that advertises KFC to children?

Sadiq Khan: Let me be clear. I am very pleased I ignored your representations not to do this. I am very clear and let be clear about this. I ignored your response, which was to do nothing about the challenge we face.
What we did was to use the same model that Ofcom has been using since 2007, 12 years ago now, and that the ASA, which you pray in aid, has been using since 2017. The point is that I said all along that the ban on junk food adverts would evolve and so you are seeing an iteration now. There will be a further evolution after a year when the independent evaluation takes place, I am sure.

Andrew Boff: As you know, MrMayor, as a group we have recommended that you actually do something about childhood obesity, but you‑‑

Sadiq Khan: I am sorry, Chair. There has been another U-turn, Chair. The Conservatives now supporting me banning junk food on the Tube. You heard it here first, Chair.

Andrew Boff: No, I am being very clear, MrMayor. We are very clear, MrMayor. We think you should do something about child obesity‑‑

Sadiq Khan: Sorry, Chair. They do not support a U-turn. I beg your pardon. They still think that junk food should be advertised on the Tube, targeting children.

Andrew Boff: We know the fact is you are neglecting young people. You are neglecting those techniques that have been proven to work. You are running absolutely no classes whatsoever on healthy eating. You are not looking at those communities that are particularly challenged by childhood obesity. Instead, you have gone for virtue signalling.

Sadiq Khan: I am sure there is a question somewhere, Chair, but if I could respond at some stage?

Andrew Boff: Do you not wish, MrMayor, that early on in this process you had listened a little more and virtue signalled a little less?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, let me answer the question. I am pleased I ignored the worst excesses of the representations made by the Conservative Group. What I did instead was to have a comprehensive plan to address child obesity in our city, which is a ticking time bomb. We have London’s first Child Obesity Task Force, which includes representatives from schools, councils and community activists. We have also‑‑

Andrew Boff: Let us face it, MrMayor. That has done nothing. It has done absolutely nothing.

Jennette Arnold: No, let the Mayor finish his answer, MrBoff.

Sadiq Khan: There is criticism on the one hand for going too fast and criticism on the other hand for doing nothing.

Andrew Boff: You are doing nothing.

Sadiq Khan: In addition to the Child Obesity Task Force, we have set up a Healthy Schools London programme. Over 2,000 schools are already involved in this programme, 83% of all London schools. He says we have done nothing. On top of that, the Healthy Early Years London programme is promoting physical activity in younger children. Over 1,200 nurseries and childminders are registered, reaching an estimated 70,000 children. He says that that is doing nothing.
On top of that, we have a Sport Strategy, the boldest one this City Hall has done in 19 years. It includes funding - in the context of Government cuts - to grassroots sports projects that are helping Londoners become active through Sports Unites and the Young Londoners Fund. Yet he says we have done nothing. I am supporting a really important initiative, the Daily Mile campaign, which now 492 London primary schools have signed up to, which means that every day children and staff will do one mile’s worth of exercise, which includes running and jogging around the school.
On top of that, we have a Healthy Streets programme, costing hundreds of millions of pounds and encouraging more people to walk, cycle and use public transport. Some councils like the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea are against people walking and cycling more than they currently do. Some councils like Westminster stopped and aborted the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street. We are doing a whole host of things, Chair. I have announced today a car-free day on 22 September [2019] and our plans for that day, which would be a carnival for more people being active.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you. MrBoff has finished. Can I just say to the Member who was seeking to make a Point of Order, a Point of Order may not relate to the Mayor mentioning a borough. A Point of Order only relates if he has‑‑

Tony Devenish: Misrepresented a borough.

Jennette Arnold: No. That may be your interpretation of it. No, there is no Point of Order. Now let us move on to the next question.

Housing

Andrew Boff: Are you doing all you can to get new homes built in London?

The Mayor: Yes. Not only are we doing all we can, but we are succeeding in building more of the homes that Londoners need. For example, last year my programme started three times as many homes based on social rents in London as were started in the rest of England put together. Through ‘Building Council Homes for Londoners’, the first-ever City Hall programme dedicated to council homebuilding, we also helped councils to get more new council homes underway than in any year since 1985.

Government Housing Priorities

Tom Copley: Theresa May became Prime Minister promising to fight for those ‘just about managing’ – do you think she delivered on this for Londoners facing a housing crisis? What would you tell the incoming Prime Minister they need to do for housing in London?

Sadiq Khan: In 2016 the PM said the housing crisis was one of the country’s most urgent problems. She was right, but her actions over the last three years have been a total failure. The PM’s only real achievements have been to undo some of the damaging policies of previous Conservative and Liberal Democrat administrations. Removing the Housing Revenue Account borrowing cap, reverting plans to force councils to sell off council homes in high-value areas and reinstating at least some funding for rented homes. The U-turns do not amount to the bold and far-reaching action we need, and meanwhile the Government has ploughed on with limiting benefits and moving to Universal Credit, which has fuelled homelessness and rough sleeping.
Of course, it is impossible to talk about the PM’s legacy without mentioning Brexit. The uncertainty created by her botched handling of Brexit is threatening the supply of new and affordable housing by dampening investment and increasing the scale of the construction skills shortage, but the next PM must do more than untangle the Brexit mess. They must also urgently begin discussions with us about devolving to City Hall the extra funding and powers we need.
Latterly, one of the candidates, my predecessor at City Hall [The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP], made clear last year [2018] his support for the fiscal devolution required, in his words, “To build the homes our children and grandchildren are going to need”. As Mayor he argued that cities should be given powers to raise locally the taxes they spend locally, and he specifically advocated devolution of stamp duty. I look forward to these proposals being taken forward if he is successful.
Devolution is not just about funding. Devolution must include strong new powers for City Hall and councils to assemble land for new affordable housing, to build far more ourselves and to overhaul the private rented sector and to make it fit for purpose. If the winning candidate is indeed the former occupant of the office I now hold, I hope he will support London getting the step-change of investment and powers we urgently need to truly fix the housing crisis.

Tom Copley: Thank you for that answer, Mr Mayor, and you actually did pre-empt one of my supplementary questions which was about fiscal devolution and indeed the former Mayor’s very strongly expressed views on this when he was Mayor of London. I hope you will be writing to him immediately if, God forbid but unfortunately, as expected, he is going to become the PM.

Sadiq Khan: The reason why I was really pleased when the leader of the Conservatives asked about honesty in politics is I assumed he was talking about BorisJohnson. If we want honesty in politics, then I would assume that BorisJohnson will keep his promise and carry through some of the stuff in the London Finance Commission.

Tom Copley: He is famous for never changing his mind or flip-flopping, isn’t he, Mr Mayor?
Can I ask seriously for a moment, moving to a very serious issue? We had the Combinations Homelessness and Information Network figures out yesterday, which showed that the number of people sleeping rough in 2018/19 rose 18% to a record 8,855 people, which is absolutely shocking. Rough sleeping in London has more than doubled since 2010. 650 people have died on our streets in the past five years, and last night, tragically, a person sleeping rough was killed in a fire in a makeshift camp in the London Borough of Redbridge, which should fill us with great sorrow but also with great anger. What would you tell the new PM if they are serious about eradicating rough sleeping?

Sadiq Khan: What we are doing in London is a huge amount to do with the causes of the housing crisis, so we have doubled the amount of money we spend on rough sleeping since I first became Mayor. We have doubled the size of our outreach team. We are helping more people now than ever before. It is not enough because the causes have not been changed and improved by the Government. It is like being in a boat. You have a bucket throwing out the water, but there is a massive hole in your boat that is not being addressed. We have to deal with the massive hole in the boat. The massive hole in the boat means changing the welfare benefits policies. It means investing significantly more in social housing, council housing, genuinely affordable housing, and doing far more to stop somebody becoming homeless or a rough sleeper in the first place. Until those things are addressed, we are going to carry on trying to get water out of our boat with a massive hole in it.

Tom Copley: Absolutely. You mentioned also in your reply the private rented sector, and it is very clear that we need much greater stability and security for private renters across the city. After huge campaigning pressure particularly from Generation Rent, TheresaMay’s Government pledged to end no-fault eviction. Given again that her likely successor as PM has repeatedly when he was Mayor refused to endorse statutory measures to provide long-term stability for tenants, preferring instead a toothless voluntary approach, are you concerned that he will quietly drop this policy if he becomes PM?

Sadiq Khan: I hope he looks at the evidence. To be fair, all the PM has agreed to do is consult on any of this with no-fault evictions. We need to make sure that carries through and section 21 is scrapped. It is really important. We also need to make sure the Government is persuaded of the need for rent control now. For me the argument and the evidence is unarguable. One of the reasons why KarenBuck MP and JamesMurray [Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development] are doing this piece of work is to have the evidence base we can give to Government to make it realise that London is different. More and more Londoners are renting privately. We need to end section 21. We need to have rent controls. We should have some confidence that you and others were successful in persuading the Government to end the fees people are paying letting agents when they are tenants. We have a track record of persuading Governments who appear to be unmovable. I am hoping we can persuade the next PM to realise the importance of rent controls in London.

Tom Copley: Thank you, Mr Mayor.

MD2441

Gareth Bacon: What are you hoping to achieve through MD2441?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you. I agreed for London & Partners (L&P), our promotional agency, to create a subsidiary company, London & Partners Events Limited, to run and promote future events, to help continue to build and reinforce London’s brand internationally. The new subsidiary company, London & Partners Events Limited, will help mitigate state aid risk by demonstrating that its activities are separate to the parent company’s grant-funded activities. Applying for charitable status will also the company to benefit from gift aid donations. The company will also abide by the Charity Commission’s transparency requirements to demonstrate to donors what they plan to do with money raised and how it will enable the charity’s mission and objectives to be fulfilled.
The events of that will promote London to a global audience, helping us to attract leisure and business tourism, investment and talent. It will also cement London’s place as the global hub for talent and innovation. The future events by London & Partners Events Limited will create opportunities in the long term for young Londoners to develop skills, access to employment and business opportunities. These events will also create economic growth and opportunity to London and benefit as many Londoners as possible.
The events are worth over £12billion to London’s economy annually, and L&P contributes £62million in gross value-added per year from business meetings and major events it helps to attract and win. L&P promotes major sporting and cultural events held in London to build and reinforce London’s brand internationally. It has also helped to create new events, such as London Tech Week held last week, which is now in its sixth year and sees 200 events take place across the city, attracting 55,000 delegates over the week, with over 10% being international visitors. L&P has also been involved in the creation of special events which have received global media coverage, including RideLondon and the Lumiere Light Festival. I look forward to the future events that will continue to showcase London as a global city to live, work and do business in.

Gareth Bacon: Thank you for that answer, Mr Mayor. The philanthropic donors that you are anticipating: have you any concrete pledges of philanthropic donors that would be attracted by this?

Sadiq Khan: The answer is yes, but I am very happy for the Assembly to receive a briefing. Some of this is commercially sensitive. If I could just explain this way. Some of the help is going to be through gift aid but also travel donations. The idea of the subsidiary company is to enable them to access that. What I am happy to do is for the Conservative speaker - the other hat he wears may be relevant - to get a proper briefing from L&P in relation to the advantages of the subsidiary company. He will appreciate why I cannot go into details in this sort of forum.

Gareth Bacon: OK. Without tempting you into anything that might be commercially sensitive, then, will philanthropic donors be published online?

Sadiq Khan: That is my intention, and also they will abide by Charity Commission rules. It is important we have transparency. With other concerns raised, with other projects the previous Mayor was involved in, it is important there is transparency.

Gareth Bacon: Without wishing to tempt you into giving a figure, is there an anticipated additional revenue coming into L&P as a result of this?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, can I thank the Assembly Member for the way he asked that question? L&P does, and can I again suggest that during the briefing you have they take you through some of these figures, including the event that has been talked about and what it is hoped it will achieve?

Gareth Bacon: OK. I would like to take you up on that, Mr Mayor. Thank you very much.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you.

Silvertown Tunnel contract

Caroline Russell: Why are you committing the next Mayor of London to building Silvertown Tunnel?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. The current situation at the Blackwall Tunnel cannot be allowed to continue. The Tunnel was first opened 120 years ago and was not designed to cope with today’s levels of traffic. It was closed 700 times alone in 2017/18, 700 times in one year, making it the least reliable river crossing in London. The single-decker bus, the 108, that does cross the river using this tunnel is deemed unreliable by passengers and potential passengers. In fact, it is probably the most unreliable bus in London. These Blackwall Tunnel closures can lead to total gridlock and tailbacks of two miles, leading to stationary traffic pumping out noxious fumes, causing some of the worst air quality in London.
The Silvertown Tunnel is the best way to resolve these problems and London cannot afford to wait any longer to see it delivered. When I became Mayor in 2016, I inherited a design for the Silvertown Tunnel scheme that had very limited environmental considerations. We assessed this scheme and made significant changes to better protect the environment and ensure there was a greater focus on walking, cycling and public transport. At the same time I asked TfL to stop work on road crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere.
By effectively reducing congestion, the Silvertown Tunnel will deliver an overall improvement in air quality and be within the expanded ULEZ. It will not lead to any increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Local landscaping and pocket parks will improve the local area and deliver a net gain in biodiversity in the longer term. The scheme also includes setting a minimum number of buses per hour at peak times, concessions for local residents, and walking and cycling improvements in the surrounding area.
TfL is also investing in other public transport infrastructure in east London, including the new Docklands Light Railway (DLR) trains, extending the London Overground to Barking Riverside and new bus routes through the Silvertown Tunnel, giving more Londoners the ability to cross the river without being forced to rely on driving.
TfL has spent significant time developing the scheme in close consultation with stakeholders, which has resulted in a strong set of commitments and controls to ensure it delivers the forecast environmental, economic and social outcomes. There will be no overall increase in the levels of traffic, but with additional trips being accommodated through the new clean cross-river bus services that the scheme facilitates. Central to the scheme is the introduction of user charging across the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels to ensure there is no overall increase in traffic and that the scheme delivers an overall improvement in air quality and no CO2 emissions through reduced congestion and tailbacks.

Caroline Russell: MrMayor, by building this tunnel, you are paving the way for increased traffic and locking in vehicle-dominated motorways, which already sever communities in Silvertown, North Greenwich, Blackwell and beyond. Nobody wants to live next to a motorway tunnel mouth.
You mentioned that there will be some pocket parks. That is something you might expect in a healthy street, but is the Silvertown Tunnel really compatible with your Healthy Streets agenda?

Sadiq Khan: The problem we have, which you cannot address, is how we deal with the fact that the Blackwall Tunnel is closed 700 times a year on average, which leads to the catastrophe that we currently have where there are tailbacks, poor quality air and congestion. Also, people do not cross the river using the bus because it is unreliable. It is unreliable because the Blackwall Tunnel is often closed and there are massive tailbacks. The passengers when they choose to go on that bus have no confidence that they will reach the other side at any time in the near future.
By having a tunnel that has a lane reserved for buses - it will start with 20 buses an hour going to 37 an hour - you will have public transport going from one side to the other side, encouraging more people to use public transport. Also, we are organising people to get from one side to the other who are pedestrians or cyclists for free as well.

Caroline Russell: MrMayor, not only is it an unhealthy street having this massive extra motorway tunnel charging through east London, but it is also a climate failure. The Welsh Government recently declared a climate emergency and its next decision was cancelling a big road. They cancelled the M4 project.
How do you justify introducing a massive new road tunnel when we are in a climate emergency? We should be decarbonising transport as fast as possible.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I could understand that question coming from somebody from Wales who does not understand the area. I am astonished that somebody who claims to understand the area does not understand the current problems that exist‑‑

Caroline Russell: MrMayor‑‑

Sadiq Khan: Let me answer the question at least before being interrupted.

Caroline Russell: ‑‑ AssemblyMemberGavron was just talking about embedded carbon with buildings. The embedded carbon from the construction alone would be the equivalent to seven years of existing emissions from the Blackwall Tunnel and its approaches. If you sign off on the Silvertown Tunnel, not only are those local communities going to suffer, but you will be saddling a future Mayor and Londoners with either a huge tunnel building debt or a massive cancellation fee.
Are you really sure that you are happy with a four-lane urban motorway being the legacy of your transport policy?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, can I check? How long do I have before I am interrupted?

Caroline Russell: I have a minute of time left.

Sadiq Khan: Let me try in a minute to answer your three-minute question. We have a problem. There is a problem. There is massive congestion. There is poor-quality air already. There are tailbacks. The Blackwall Tunnel is unreliable. Doing nothing is not an option. We are also expanding the ULEZ so that it will include both of the tunnels. There will be a user charge for both tunnels. One lane being guaranteed for buses, including getting cyclists and pedestrians from one side to the other, will improve the quality of air in that part of London. Doing nothing is what we have been doing for the last few years and that has led to the problem we have now.
Comparing the M4 to a situation where the river cannot be crossed is not really realistic and I would expect more from a Londoner. That is why you cannot compare the M4 with the Blackwall Tunnel and the Silvertown Tunnel. It is a situation now where, if you want to get across the river using public transport, you choose not to do so. You either do not go across the river or you drive your car. That is what the Silvertown Tunnel is trying to address.

Caroline Russell: MrMayor, look. It is not too late. You have been incredibly progressive in declaring a climate emergency and London is really proud of that. You do not have to sign the contract for this dinosaur project. You could just fix the unreliability of the Blackwall Tunnel rather than building this massive great big new one.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, here we have it. Chair‑‑

Caroline Russell: I am out of time.

Sadiq Khan: You are out of ideas as well. How does the Assembly Member intend to fix a tunnel that is closed 700 times a year, leading to gridlock and tailbacks? We cannot have a Mayor’s Question Time where Members make speeches and not ask questions, but that is the Greens for you.

Jennette Arnold: I am not marking Members today. I am marking you, but it is not too far away before I start marking some Members. Can we have an answer now to AssemblyMemberPidgeon’s question on river crossings and transport infrastructure.

Hostmaker adverts on the Transport for London network (2)

Sian Berry: Why did it take so long for you to refer concerns about short term letting management company advertisements on the Transport for London (TfL) network to your Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. I have been clear that we should only support short-term lettings in London when people who let their homes on a short-term basis follow the law. If people abide by the 90-day annual limit, then short-term lettings can make a positive contribution to our city, such as providing more options for visitors whilst helping Londoners earn a little extra money. But where homes are let out all year round on a short-term basis, long-term rented housing can be lost whilst neighbours feel the negative impact of a continual turnover of visitors. I was, therefore, very concerned by the BBC’s footage that showed a number of platforms, including Hostmaker, encouraging hosts to break the 90-day rule. In light of this investigation, when Hostmaker’s advert on the TfL network was brought to my attention in May [2019], I immediately asked my Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development [James Murray] to follow up with TfL. He spoke to TfL, and TfL referred the recent advert to the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP), who advised that the campaign may be in breach of the CAP Code.
My Deputy Mayor will be meeting with Hostmaker to discuss our serious concerns about its business practices. Until this meeting has taken place and the issues have been resolved, TfL has assured me there will be no further Hostmaker advertising on its network.
This situation underlines the clear need for the regulation of short-term lettings in London to be strengthened and made more effective. The 90-day rule is near impossible for councils to enforce. That is why in April [2019], I along with Airbnb and London Councils wrote to the Secretary of State [The Rt Hon James Brokenshire MP] calling on the Government to develop plans for a light-touch registration system. Such a system would protect London’s long-term rented homes by giving councils the tools they need to enforce the law. I was, therefore, disappointed to receive a response from the Minister for Housing and Homelessness [Heather Wheeler MP] last week. She did not accept the need for a registration system. Instead she said, and I quote, “We should see whether positive change could be delivered more quickly on a voluntary basis”.
We have tried, Chair, to encourage change on a voluntary basis for three years. The time has come to strengthen councils’ ability to enforce the law. My Deputy Mayor [for Housing and Residential Development, James Murray] will continue working with councils, willing members of the industry and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Short-Lets Sector to push the Government under the new PM about taking this idea forward.

Sian Berry: Thank you, Mr Mayor. Sticking to the topic of adverts, I am interested that you say it was brought to your attention in May [2019], because I first asked you about this a year ago in June [2018], then again in March this year [2019]. I really am pleased that you have finally got the point about these adverts. There has been a strong campaign from Generation Rent. You have had a letter from Assembly MemberCopley on top of these questions, and this is great. It seems to me like any kind of advert for these kinds of companies at all - not just Hostmaker, not just this particular message - would be offensive to your policies even if it is not being overtly offensive to tenants.
Are you saying you are strongly taking this whole category of adverts off the TfL network?

Sadiq Khan: What is clear is that this particular company, Hostmaker, its adverts in the recent past were different to the adverts last year [2018], and there was a period of time where it had no adverts at all. These adverts are against, in my view - I am not the expert - TfL policy.

Sian Berry: With respect, Mr Mayor, the recent ones say, “My long-term tenant is terrible”, I think was the phrase, but last year [2018] the ones I first complained to you about in June were saying essentially, “Make 30% more money by using our platform, by kicking out your tenants”. Whatever they say, it is the concept of switching to a permanent Hostmaker-type service that is wrong.

Sadiq Khan: I do not have the copies in front of me in relation to the proofs last year [2018] and this year [2019]. What I am clear about is encouraging hosts to break the law. It is not something we can condone or allow to happen on the TfL network. As I said in my answer, I have instructed TfL and TfL agreed not to have any more adverts from Hostmaker. We will see what the resolution of the meeting is between JamesMurray [Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development] and Hostmaker. I am quite clear that the combination of looking at the proof in the advert and the BBC footage demonstrates that these guys are encouraging hosts to break the law.

Sian Berry: They clearly are. I will keep monitoring that. While we have a minute, this case does bring up a wider issue that we have seen repeatedly to do with advertising. We have had a series of problems with adverts that have been targeted at Londoners and then stopped after they have caused outrage or harm. We have had issues with body discrimination, the high-fat foods, where you have policy now, oppressive regimes advertising.
Should we not firstly be doing something to review and strengthen the advertising policy more generally? Secondly, should we not be thinking about the justification as a whole for subjecting Londoners to so many corporate messages in their daily lives?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I should hang around with Sian [Berry AM] more because I am always attacked for going too far the other way.

Sian Berry: This is my job.

Sadiq Khan: You will have heard Assembly MemberBoff, who represents a considerable lobby, attacking me for interfering too much with the market. You are right. We have a responsibility as public servants, but also as somebody who is responsible for a massive estate. You will have seen in the last three years we have changed radically some of the things we do on the TfL estate. Have we always got it right? No. I am always willing to make progress and make changes that make it better, and I am always genuinely receptive to ideas to improve it.

Sian Berry: Are you up for a proactive review of the advertising policy to try to anticipate some of these things, rather than waiting for scandals?

Jennette Arnold: Assembly Member Berry, you are out of time.

Sian Berry: Sorry. Yes.

Knife Crime

Peter Whittle: I note that the number of stop and searches under enhanced police powers has increased by 423% in a year in London.1 Do you now accept that this is the most effective means of addressing the knife crime issue?
1https://www.itv.com/news/london/2019-06-04/stop-and-searches-in-london-up-423-as-police-try-to-get-grip-on-violent-crime/

Sadiq Khan: Tackling violence is my number one priority. Enforcement, including intelligence-led stop-and-search, is absolutely an essential tool in doing this. Since I became Mayor, all front-line MPS officers are now equipped with body-worn video, which is a game-changer for increasing police accountability and helping to gather better evidence for swifter justice, but I do not accept that by itself stop-and-search is the most effective means of addressing knife crime. Enforcement by itself will never solve knife crime. We also need to focus on prevention.
That is why I created the Violence Reduction Unit, which uses a public health approach to tackle the causes of violence. I have also invested £45million in the Young Londoners Fund, ensuring there are a wide range of activities for young people to help them be diverted away from crime. My Knife Crime Community Seed Fund has supported 44 grassroots community groups involving protecting young people and ridding our communities of violence.
I have always supported intelligence-led stop-and-search. It is a vital tool for the police and I support its use when it is fair and proportionate. I have been listening to Londoners, young people and communities. I am absolutely clear that it must be carried out with respect, based on real intelligence, and of course police officers must feel confident using their powers where appropriate.
Since the City Hall-funded Violent Crime Task Force was launched in April last year [2018] the command has carried out 8,452 weapon sweeps, recovered over 1,800 offensive weapons, including knives and guns, and arrested 4,937 suspects over the same period. Wider activity targeting violence has seen 47,000 weapon sweeps, which have recovered 5,500 weapons.
Tackling violence is a complex matter and stop-and-search is just one part of our response. We must never be complacent, but our efforts are showing some success already with the number of victims of knife crime aged under 25 down by 20% over the last year and homicides down by 30%.

Peter Whittle: Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think we would all agree we would like to live in a world without stop-and-search. I think everyone would agree on that. There is no question about it. My question is based on the statistic that there has been a 20% drop in injuries to young people under 25 since stop-and-search has been increased, so it works. You mentioned there the public health way they do it in Scotland. Stop‑and‑search was a crucial part of that, and in fact stop-and-search increased when that policy was rolled out in Scotland. When the Scottish Parliament then legislated to stop stop-and-search or reduce it or make it harder, then knife crime started to go up. It is a fact of life. It does obviously work.
What I would say to you, Mr Mayor, is that when you were standing for Mayor I remember you said you would do everything in your power to stop stop-and-search. That sent out a message, and these things take quite a while to trickle down. People might have thought, “It is much easier”.
What I am asking you, therefore, is can you not get completely, vocally behind the increase in stop-and-search? Although we know it has happened, I have not heard that much from you. Can you do that?
Also, can you resist as well possibly some disruption that might come, like we saw possibly in Westfield last week, where there was a disturbance which might have been brought about by the use of stop-and-search? This is what I am asking you to do, to show leadership. The fact is people feel that there is a void.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, there are a number of questions I have been asked. I am trying to deal with each one and I am trying to be quick because of time.

Peter Whittle: I have little time.

Sadiq Khan: Sorry, you are out of time?

Peter Whittle: No. I am just asking‑‑

Sadiq Khan: I have seen no evidence that stop-and-search is the sole reason why crime goes down. Number one. Number two ‑‑

Peter Whittle: I did not say that.

Sadiq Khan: You did. As part of a package of measures which need to be taken to address the issue of crime, enforcement is very important.

Peter Whittle: Mr Mayor, it has been drastically increased in London and we have seen, therefore, a 20% drop in knife injuries to young people under 25.

Sadiq Khan: The Home Office under a Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government carried out research the last time there was industrial, indiscriminate use of stop-and-search at the levels we saw in previous years, which showed no link between industrial-scale stop-and-search and a reduction in crime. Point number one.
Point number two. The reduction of industrial-scale stop-and-search began when BorisJohnson was the Mayor and TheresaMay was the PM, and I supported them in relation to not using industrial-scale, indiscriminate stop-and-stop. There was an 80% reduction when BorisJohnson was the Mayor and TheresaMay was PM. What I do support is the importance of stop-and-search being used in an intelligence-led manner, also‑‑

Peter Whittle: Yes, but everyone agrees with that, Mr Mayor. I do not think you will find anyone disagreeing with intelligence-led stop-and-search as opposed to maybe what went on before.

Sadiq Khan: I think you will. I think you will. You should listen to BorisJohnson.

Peter Whittle: The fact is, if you say there is no link between industrial stop-and-search and a decrease, why in that case has there been a huge increase in section 60s, quite rightly, I would say?

Sadiq Khan: Let me explain. The most common use of section 60 is after a knife attack in an area, often where the police are worried about tit-for-tat reprisals. What we have seen in London is a very good use of section 60 to make sure that we do not have an escalation of knife crime in particular areas. If you analyse where the section 60 searches are taking place, they are in areas where the police know there are high incidents of violent crime taking place, and it has been used in a tactical and strategic manner.
What you are seeing with the police now is using the Police and Criminal Evidence Act stop-and-search but also the section 60 stop-and-search in a good manner, but the context is we have 3,500 fewer police officers and so, not unreasonably, there are less stop-and-searches.

President Trump’s Visit

David Kurten: Do you agree that President Trump’s recent state visit to the United Kingdom was a most excellent success?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. No. DonaldTrump is the poster boy for a global far-right movement, alongside people like ViktorOrbán in Hungary, MatteoSalvini in Italy, MarineLePen in France and NigelFarage here. They are using the same methods from the old far-right playbook, picking on minority communities and the marginalised to manufacture an enemy, fabricating lies to stoke up fear and promoting hatred of immigrants, sympathy for white nationalism and attacks on women’s reproductive rights, and rolling back the progress made on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and others’ (LGBT+) rights. That is why we should not have rolled out the red carpet, held a state banquet and spent millions of pounds on a formal state visit for such a divisive President.
We should remember that this is a man who has repeatedly made sexist and derogatory comments about women, suggested that women who seek abortions should face - and I quote - “some form of punishment”, implemented immigration policies that have led to the separation of children from their families, defended white supremacists, anti-Semites and far-right nationalists, tried to ban people from entering the United States (US) simply because of the religion they practice, threatened to veto a ban on the use of rape as a weapon of war, deliberately used xenophobia, racism and otherness as electoral tactics, and only last weekend amplified the racist tweet of a far-right activist in Britain. This behaviour, Chair, flies in the face of the ideals the US was founded upon: equality, liberty and religious freedom.
Rather than bestowing DonaldTrump with a state visit, the Government should have used a working visit as an opportunity to speak out and to say that Trump’s views are incompatible with British values and that they pose a grave threat to the principles we have fought hard to defend, often together with the US, for decades.

David Kurten: MrMayor, you are absolutely wrong about PresidentTrump. PresidentTrump is one of the greatest Presidents of the United States, in fact on a par with President Reagan, and it was absolutely right for Her Majesty the Queen‑‑

Jennette Arnold: No, AssemblyMemberKurten, you can stop and then, when people are quiet, you can continue.

David Kurten: Thank you, Chair.

Jennette Arnold: We will keep doing this until we show the AssemblyMember the respect that he is due.

David Kurten: Thank you, Chair. It was absolutely right that Her Majesty The Queen and the PM invited PresidentTrump as the President of the United States and one of the greatest Presidents to come to this country. The majority of Londoners and the majority of people in this country were proud to welcome him. The only fly in the ointment in his wonderful visit was when you, MrMayor, decided for no reason whatsoever just to put an article in the Observer the day before he came. It was very rude to the President of the United States and it was wrong to do that. When the Queen and the PM have decided to roll out the red carpet, it is wrong of a lesser official to go against them.
I do need to ask you about some of the things that you wrote in your article. One of the things you said was that you accused the President of interfering shamelessly in the Conservative Party leadership race by backing BorisJohnson [MP]. That is not entirely accurate. He called BorisJohnson his friend. He called NigelFarage, another great man, his friend as well. However, you, MrMayor, in 2016 interfered in the American presidential election when you backed the loser, HillaryClinton, brazenly and openly.
Is it not hypocritical in a sense for you to accuse the President of doing something that you have done yourself?

Sadiq Khan: I will show the AssemblyMember, my critic, more respect than DonaldTrump shows his critics. I have heard you out. I think you are wrong.
Look, we have a rich history of being a country that is a beacon for human rights, for civil liberties, for women’s rights and for standing up to white nationalists. One of the things about DonaldTrump is that he is the President of our closest ally. A special relationship is akin to having someone who is your best friend and that means of course you stand with them at times of adversity, but when you think they are wrong you have to be candid and say, “Listen, you are wrong”.
I will remind you of this. Your hero defended white supremacists at Charlottesville [Virginia]. He gave equivalence to white supremacists, anti-Semites and anti-racism campaigners, one of whom lost their life. He is a poster boy for racists. He amplifies the tweets of racists. I want nothing to do with him.

David Kurten: MrMayor, you are spinning false narratives there. You are saying that you are now a friend of the US. I wonder. With friends like you, there is not much need for enemies.
What you have said is that we should not be rolling out the red carpet for PresidentTrump, but you have rolled out the red carpet for a number of ambassadors of countries that have terrible records on human rights. In an event upstairs here, you rolled out the red carpet for the ambassadors of Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sudan and Yemen, countries that all have travel bans on Israeli citizens. Iran itself is terrible with human rights. In fact, if you are a woman in Iran and you decide not to wear a hijab, you can get put in prison, but you have never said anything about that. That is far worse than anything that you may accuse President Trump of falsely.
What do you have to say about the Iranian regime throwing women in prison if they decide not to wear a hijab?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, just to clarify, I have not invited anybody to London for a state visit, let alone to City Hall. That is just factually incorrect. I do not have the power to do so. The objection I have to DonaldTrump is the state visit. I have no objection at all to having a close working relationship with DonaldTrump. In fact, in my answer I made it quite clear‑‑

David Kurten: You have avoided answering the question directly, but you did say similar things when he came for a working visit last year [2018] and so it does not seem that your answer is particularly correct historically. Unfortunately, I am out of time. I wish I had more than six minutes to question you. It has, as always, been a pleasure, MrMayor, but I will have to hand back to the Chair.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you. The next question in the name of AssemblyMemberBoff is withdrawn for a written reply.

Building affordable homes on NHS land

Onkar Sahota: The NHS faces a spiralling workforce crisis with the latest figures showing more than 7,300 nursing and midwifery vacancies in London alone. Thanks to pay lagging behind the cost of living for years, NHS staff are being priced out of London. Yet the Government has let NHS land be used for luxury developments. What can the GLA and partners do to make up for the Government’s failure to ensure these vital staff can afford to live in our city?

Sadiq Khan: Public lands should play a key role in tackling London’s housing crisis. Surplus NHS land should be used to build more genuinely affordable homes for NHS staff and for those who do vital jobs to keep our city going. The Government’s approach has often forced public landowners to sell to the highest bidder. A recent report highlighted the shocking statistic that more than two-thirds of homes sold on larger surplus NHS sites last year [2018] were unaffordable to a nurse on an average salary. Despite the Government’s flaws, we are working with the public sector landowners, including the NHS, to do all we can to ensure development on public land includes more affordable housing.

Onkar Sahota: MrMayor, thank you for that response. The London Estates Board has pledged 12,500 more homes to be built on surplus NHS land and the Government has provided just £150million of capital funding, despite a £3billion bid by the Sustainability and Transformation Plans collectively. How can the GLA help to ensure that these 12,500 homes are built? Crucially, will this figure meet your expectations of 50% being affordable?

Sadiq Khan: It is a big problem, the Government’s lack of commitment to building genuinely affordable homes for our hardworking NHS staff. A couple of things we are doing - there are more than a couple of things, but a couple of things I will mention - the draft London Plan makes it quite clear the expectation is that on any surplus public land, 50% of homes must be genuinely affordable. A good example of where we have worked with a local council is on the former Holloway Prison in Islington, using our revolving Land Fund to get Peabody and the private developer to make sure more than half the homes are genuinely affordable. We have also used our Land Fund to help St Ann’s as well. It is going to be tough. The good news is there is an appetite there from the NHS, but it needs support from Her Majesty’s Government in the form of the Treasury and financial support as well.

Onkar Sahota: Great. Of course, research from the Royal College of Nurses has shown that two-thirds of nurses said the cost of housing is making them think about leaving London. The London Health Board has supported the homes for NHS staff to unlock quick wins where affordable houses can be built. How many homes do you expect to be delivered in this way and how will you make sure that the NHS acts on the lessons to be learned from that?

Sadiq Khan: I am not optimistic about the homes, bearing in mind the lack of commitment from the Government. The Royal College of Nursing articulated a real concern that they have got a record number of vacancies. One of the biggest reasons given is the cost of living, housing being the biggest part of that cost. We are working closely with the One Public Estate programme with the Department for Health and Social Care. We are working on promoting the toolkit to help NHS trusts when it comes to surplus public land. Also, general practitioner practices can help. It is not just the big pieces of land; it is the small pieces of land as well. The London Estates Board is an opportunity to do really important stuff to make progress in relation to key workers who are NHS staff. It is really important we use surplus public land to build genuinely affordable homes that NHS staff desperately need.

Onkar Sahota: MrMayor, I want to congratulate you. In 2018 you used the Mayor’s Land Fund to buy the St Ann’s site in Haringey, allowing more homes to be built and half of those were affordable. Given the Government’s failure to fund capital improvements to London and its needs, are you considering further interventions to make sure public land is used for public good rather than private profit?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. One of the challenges for the NHS is best value. You can understand the constraints they are under. They need the resources from the sale of surplus land to improve clinical care for patients. The six assurances that I have got in relation to plans for surplus public land are very important. If they are met, there are things we can do to help. There are other examples besides St Ann’s: North Middlesex Hospital site we are working on; Holloway Prison I have mentioned, which is Ministry of Justice surplus land. We have now reached a memorandum of understanding with the Whittington Hospital in relation to surplus land there. We are really keen to work with key partners across London. The message to councils is if you know about a GP practice or an NHS site in your area that we may not know about, let us know and we will do what we can to help you.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, MrMayor.

Tony Arbour: Thank you. Thank you, MrMayor, for your answers this morning. I am afraid that the Chair did not leave your assessment with me.

London’s Future Infrastructure

Navin Shah: London’s future major infrastructure projects are at risk from those within Government and beyond who suggest major rethinks and the diversion of resources away from the Capital. What is your assessment of the devastating impact that cancellations or delays to such projects would have on London’s economy and regeneration projects, including at Old Oak Common and Park Royal?

Sadiq Khan: It is clear that London needs new infrastructure to support its growing population and expanding economy. We cannot provide the affordable homes Londoners need without considerable infrastructure and investment. I have limited fiscal powers, and while I continue to lobby for more, this investment requires Government support. The uncertainty from the leadership election taking place now and from Brexit is putting this in jeopardy. With the Comprehensive Spending Review on ice, it is unclear when the investment London needs will be forthcoming. This means important schemes like the Piccadilly line upgrade, Crossrail 2 and the Bakerloo line extension are now uncertain. This could have a devastating impact on the delivery of homes and jobs in the capital.
However, there is some cause for optimism. My strategies align entirely with the National Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Assessment published in July 2018. The Commission has shown that both London’s and the rest of the country’s infrastructure can be supported within the fiscal envelope of 1.2% of gross domestic product set by the Treasury. The assessment reiterates the point that infrastructure is not a zero-sum game between London and the rest of the UK. The Commission and I both support High Speed 2 (HS2), which is expected to provide real benefits for Londoners, including unlocking opportunities for homes and jobs at Old Oak and Park Royal. I am concerned about the Government delay on HS2, which could put the development of areas at serious risk.

Navin Shah: Thank you, Mr Mayor. Will you recommend that the new PM - who is likely to be the one who actually set up the mayoral development corporation for Old Oak Common and Park Royal - continues with the HS2 project which is at risk?

Sadiq Khan: Yes. I would be recommending to the new PM to continue with HS2, and if it is BorisJohnson, he knows a lot about this, and so I would be hoping that it would be an easier sell to him than other candidates who could be the PM.

Navin Shah: Yes, because the concerns have been very, very widely debated that the projected estimate could go as far as £100billion, and there is even talk about not only scrapping this but investing into High Speed 3 for the northern parts. Given that situation, is this something that you will be actively doing as soon as the PM is in place?

Sadiq Khan: Yes. We have a whole list of things I would want to discuss with the PM, but infrastructure investment in London is top of that list. The important thing is this: the National Infrastructure Commission agrees that investment in infrastructure in London benefits the entire country. For the country to do well, we need to invest in infrastructure, so I am hoping that if it is BorisJohnson, his experience as being Mayor of London and his commitment to this project and other projects will make it easier to persuade him why we have to proceed full steam ahead.

Navin Shah: A worse scenario: should HS2 get scrapped, do you have a plan B to deliver, as you were saying, the major regeneration project to deliver 25,500 new homes as well as 65,000 new jobs? There is a hell of a lot here at stake.

Sadiq Khan: Just as an objective statement, if HS2 was scrapped it would be devastating for the chances to redevelop Old Oak and Park Royal. In addition to the homes you mentioned, 25,500, more than 65,000 jobs over the next 20 to 30 years. It would be devastating for that part of London. That is one of the criticisms experts have of our country. It is always stop-start, stop-start, stop-start. What we need is for political leaders to be brave and agree to things, even if they will not bear fruit until after they have left office, to commit to those. I am hoping that if it is BorisJohnson, he understands this.

Navin Shah: You also mentioned Crossrail 2. Again, that is also at risk, as we all know. Should the Government refuse to support Crossrail 2 in terms of its financial investment, do you think that London can afford to build it ourselves?

Sadiq Khan: That is a very good question. At the moment we have very little fiscal devolution, so we are limited to what we can do. If the Government was not to give us the support we have asked for in relation to Crossrail 2 and was not to devolve more powers over fiscal devolution, it would be very difficult. I met the metro mayors this week, and all of them could do with more powers and resources. If the Government was to give us more devolution, we could find other ways of trying to pay off the infrastructure. We are using one model for the Silvertown Tunnel which is possible because of user charging. The DLR extension was paid for using the PFI. The Northern line extension is using business rates. There are models out there, but it means devolving powers to us and trusting us.

Navin Shah: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor.

Oral Update to the Mayor's Report

Jennette Arnold: The Mayor will now provide an oral update of up to five minutes in length on matters occurring since the publication of his report. Assembly Members have submitted several requests for topics for inclusion within the update and those details were provided to you, Mayor. Over to you, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: Good morning, Chair. Can I associate myself fully with the comments you made in your opening about various matters.
Chair, London has suffered five terrible homicides over the last week. Every single death as a result of violent crime like this is an utter tragedy, leaving lives destroyed, families heartbroken and communities reeling. Several arrests have now been made following these horrific attacks and some charges have been brought too, and our under-resourced and overstretched police are working around the clock to keep Londoners safe.
As Mayor, I am determined to tackle this problem head-on with a relentless focus on both arresting violent offenders and tackling the root causes. There is no getting away from the fact that this has been made far worse by the Government’s huge cuts to the police and preventative services like youth services, local councils and charities across our city. Cuts really do have consequences, something now finally even the Government and the Conservative leadership candidates admit. We will continue to do all we can in London, but the new Prime Minister (PM), whoever that may be, must act and do the right thing by properly funding our police and preventative services.
Today is Clean Air Day and I am pleased to take this opportunity to announce new plans for London’s biggest ever car-free day. This will take place on Sunday, 22September2019, and will include 20 kilometres of closed roads around Tower Bridge, London Bridge and much of the City of London. Our aim is to give Londoners and visitors the opportunity to reimagine their city without any cars and to enable them to enjoy free events on streets across the capital. This will be a great opportunity for Londoners to leave their cars behind and to explore London by foot, bike or public transport.
Chair, since we last met I have been working on a number of strategies and initiatives to improve the lives of Londoners. This includes investing £6million in 15 new projects to tackle air pollution and climate change, and setting out plans for a major expansion of London’s electric vehicle charging network.
I would like to end my opening remarks by paying tribute to the London Fire Commissioner, DanyCotton [QFSM], who has today announced her retirement after 32 years of service at the London Fire Brigade (LFB) and as London’s Fire Commissioner. Dany is a true role model who has broken down barriers for women in London and inspired people who would not otherwise have considered being firefighters to join the Fire Brigade. I wish her the very best in retirement when she leaves the Brigade next year [2020].
Chair, I have also been asked, as you mentioned, for three separate oral updates. The first one is on Hammersmith Bridge. Yes, we will want to meet with the Government on this. The ongoing technical work to understand options and potential costs includes analysing the detailed inspections and surveys that have been taking place to understand the bridge’s condition. Understanding this information is vital to help establish the best repair option. This work is nearly complete. Both Transport for London (TfL) and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham expect to have a better idea of costs and timeframes for the chosen repair option in August [2019]. I will also be seeking to make cross-party representations to the Government at that time. As well as working with Hammersmith and Fulham, TfL is working closely with Richmond Council and I hope that this kind of joint approach will ultimately be beneficial for the residents of west London, who, understandably, want to see the bridge open again. TfL, Richmond, and Hammersmith and Fulham appeared together at a public meeting last night to answer questions from residents. TfL is looking to arrange further sessions in the coming months so that the local community is kept fully informed as the plans for repairing the bridge are finalised.
TfL is continuing to invite feedback from passengers about the changes that it has made to the local bus network in response to the closure. It is carefully monitoring the situation and reviewing the feedback it has received to help decide whether further changes are needed. It has already introduced more buses on route33 in response to its monitoring and comments received.
The second question, Chair, is from you about violent crime. These homicides in London are heart-breaking. Every life lost to violent crime is a tragedy and even more keenly felt when it is a young person. Every death is one too many.
In response to these homicides, our under-resourced and overstretched police have been working incredibly hard. As always, I have been in contact with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [Cressida Dick CBE QPM] and her Deputy [Sir Stephen House QPM] and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has increased the coverage of the City Hall-funded Violent Crime Task Force in targeted areas across London. Officers from across the boroughs, supported by colleagues from specialist units, also undertook high-visibility patrols to prevent further violence and to provide reassurance to the communities in those areas.
However, we know that enforcement is only part of the picture. That is why I am investing over £7million into our new Violence Reduction Unit, funding £45million of activity and services for young Londoners, and delivering services across the capital to support those who wish to turn away from violence to be able to do so.
These latest homicides are a sobering reminder of why we must never be complacent in the face of violence. Even as the MPS reports reducing levels of violence, with the number of victims of knife crime aged under 25 down by 20% over the last year and homicides down by 30%, I am determined to continue to do everything in my power to prevent more Londoners becoming victims of violent crime.
The final question, Chair, by way of a request for an oral update is from AssemblyMemberRussell. I am truly disappointed that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has announced its opposition to TfL’s proposals for the WoodLane‑to-Notting Hill Gate walking and cycling scheme. What is particularly concerning - and frankly remarkable - is that this was done whilst the consultation was still open, a consultation the borough was actively inviting people to have their say on. The Council has made a mockery of the whole process. The scheme was developed in partnership with the borough, which controls roads along part of the route. TfL was happy for Kensington and Chelsea to take a neutral stance when the plans were published and for them to form a position, having considered consultation feedback. TfL was and still is willing to consider design changes to address key concerns. TfL has received more than 5,000 responses to the consultation and many of these views are being ignored by the borough. Kensington and Chelsea cannot claim to have listened to residents when the consultation has not even finished, nor can it claim to have properly assessed the scheme given the design process has yet to be completed.
These roads are unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. There have been 293 collisions over the last three years over the route, 65 on Holland Park Avenue alone, with the vast majority of serious injuries to cyclists and pedestrians. None of these casualties are acceptable. In my view, it is not an option to stand by and do nothing. TfL’s plans would make it easier to cross busy roads with 15 new pedestrian crossings in locations where people actually want to cross and a segregated space for people to cycle safely. The borough’s own Local Implementation Plan aims to encourage more trips by walking, cycling and public transport and fewer by private car. Kensington and Chelsea now needs to set out how it plans to deliver safer streets and more attractive neighbourhoods.

Support for EU Londoners

Fiona Twycross: What support can you provide for EU Londoners suffering from stress and anxiety as a result of the chaos surrounding Brexit?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. I have made it clear that despite Brexit, over 1million EU citizens who live in London, are Londoners and are welcome in our great city. The Government has dragged its feet in securing the rights of EU nationals. EU Londoners are facing the biggest change in rights and immigration status for a generation. They should never have been bargaining chips in negotiation as they are our friends, neighbours and colleagues and should be treated with dignity and humanity.
People need practical support to help them navigate a confusing and uncertain immigration system to secure their rights to remain in the UK. As Mayor I have been doing everything I can to ensure that all Londoners have the information and support they need to secure their rights. That is why I am taking specific action to make sure we are reaching and supporting the most vulnerable Londoners.
On 29March[2019] my London is Open community advice outreach bus kicked off a four-day tour providing advice and support to EU Londoners. My team met more than 1,000 European Londoners across ten London boroughs. The impact on their mental health and wellbeing was clear. People were overwhelmed, anxious about their fundamental rights of residence, and needed not just advice from the EU Settlement Scheme but also emotional support and reassurance.
Alongside the community outreach, I opened the doors of City Hall to EU Londoners, providing access to free support from immigration lawyers and organisations that offer additional support, including registered psychotherapists. We have also developed an EU Londoners Hub, which provides information translated into 27 different European languages about support services available in the capital. This includes nearly 60 mental health service providers offering free support as well as specialist services for groups we know may face additional barriers. I have awarded £50,000 worth of micro-grants to 15 community organisations across the capital to reach groups we know face particular challenges. These include older Europeans, those sleeping rough and Europeans who are disabled.

Fiona Twycross: Thank you, Mr Mayor. A therapist writing in The Guardian noted that the “sense of limbo” with people not yet being clear what is going to happen with Brexit and what form of Brexit we will see is increasing stress. In addition to this, what impact do you think the Government’s anti-immigration rhetoric has had on the mental health of EU Londoners, and would you like to see the next PM change this anti-immigration rhetoric?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for your question. It is difficult, unless you have had a chance to speak to those affected or experts, to understand the scale of the anxiety. The Chair mentioned the Windrush generation. If you go to the lower ground floor you can see arrival cards, not just EU citizens. We speak to the children of the Windrush generation. The Windrush generation is traumatised in relation to the uncertainty and being on the receiving end of a hostile environment. Can you imagine what it must be like living in a community for 20 or 30 years and a bus goes around saying, “Go home”? Can you imagine what it is like waking up one day and being told the future you thought you had had as an EU citizen is now taken away because we voted to leave the EU? It is really important to recognise that people are suffering mentally. We have seen examples of Londoners leaving our city, returning to either countries of origin or other cities around Europe because of the uncertainty caused by the EU referendum. That is why it is important to provide reassurance. Moreover, do not use human beings like bargaining chips. They are human beings.

Fiona Twycross: Absolutely, and there is clearly a very strong sentiment among European Londoners that you are showing leadership on this. What sort of leadership would you like the Government to demonstrate that could help immediately reduce the stress placed on EU Londoners and provide much-needed support at this time?

Sadiq Khan: The Government needs to say, even if there is no deal, it will give a cast-iron guarantee to all the EU citizens who are here. It is really important. Let us be clear. Assembly MemberDismore talked about the possibility of the next PM having a no-deal Brexit. Think about if you are an EU citizen and what impact that will have on you. We need the Government to realise that it needs to take real steps to address this.
To give credit, there is a Conservative MP called AlbertoCosta [MP], who gets it. He has been trying to lobby the Government to do the sensible thing. The Labour Party has been trying to lobby the Government for some time. The new PM could announce this, saying, “You know what? Irrespective of what happens on 31October [2019], you guys are welcome here. You make a massive contribution. You are staying”.

Fiona Twycross: Thank you.

Incoming Prime Minister

Joanne McCartney: What representations will you make to the next Prime Minister in relation to standing up for London?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. I will answer the question from AssemblyMemberMcCartney on the next PM, which is a nice segue from honesty, I suppose.
The first priority of the new PM must be to put an end to the chaos and confusion of Brexit. That means revoking Article50 and giving the British public the final say on Brexit. This is the only way to protect jobs, growth and prosperity for the next generation.
Keeping Londoners safe is my top priority. The next PM must ensure that the police and fire services in London have the resources they need after years of unacceptable cuts.
London also needs support from the new PM on housing. I am proud that City Hall started building a record number of affordable homes last year, but we still receive only a fraction of the housing investment we need from the Government. I want to work with the new PM to agree new funding for our affordable housing programme.
On transport, I will be calling on the new Government to commit to spending plans set out by the National Infrastructure Commission, which makes a clear case for continued investment in London’s infrastructure.
I am also calling on the next PM to join me in declaring a climate emergency and to provide the resources needed to tackle it. In London, we have been leading the way on climate action. The new Government should put forward a Green Deal so that the UK achieves the target of net zero greenhouse gases by 2050. Following the successful implementation of London’s ULEZ this year, the new Government must play its part in tackling toxic air pollution by introducing much-needed new clean air legislation and introducing a diesel scrappage scheme.
This week I was pleased to hold one of our regular meetings with other metro mayors from across the country. The incoming Government must urgently devolve more funding and powers to cities and regions so that we can deliver real change for the people we represent.

Joanne McCarthy: Thank you, MrMayor. It looks like the frontrunner to be our next PM is your predecessor, BorisJohnson.
You started today’s proceedings by talking about crime and the need for our next PM to properly fund our policing and early intervention services. Given that MrJohnson under his last two years as Conservative Mayor of this city saw violence against the person rise by 47% under his tenure, do you think he properly understands the need for that adequate resourcing?

Sadiq Khan: The problem with the national Government - and I include, by the way, the Liberal Democrats, who were part of the national Government for five years - is that it does not realise that cuts have consequences. The Liberal Democrats may try to rewrite history in relation to their part in the Coalition Government from 2010 to 2015, but we have seen the consequences in relation to crime. Violent crime has gone up across the country from 2014 and has been going up.
Here in London we have seen progress as a consequence of my investment from City Hall, working with the under-resourced and overstretched police, with homicides going down, thankfully, which is not good enough and needs to go down further, with knife injuries to under-25s going down, which is not good enough and needs to go down quicker, and with England’s first Violence Reduction Unit.
The next PM needs to realise that we need a reversal of those cuts. I am hoping that BorisJohnson, as the next PM, as it appears he will be, does a reverse on the massive cuts made by TheresaMay [MP, PM] and by DavidCameron [former PM] with Nick Clegg [former Deputy PM] and the Liberal Democrats.

Joanne McCarthy: I have great concerns. One of MrJohnson’s main offers to his Conservative Party base appears to be tax cuts for the highest paid. If I take, for example, his constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip, over 7,000 children in his own constituency are in child poverty. It has a rate of over 30% after housing costs are taken into account. Do you think they are the right strategies?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, when you hear some of the promises being made by these candidates running to be the next PM, you think, “What are these guys on?” With the revelations over the last two weeks, we can have a guess. Some of their policies are just nonsensical at a time when we have had massive cuts on public services for the last eight or nine years; to give tax cuts for people earning above £80,000 at a time when we know there is in-work poverty in our city. We know that people do two or three jobs and cannot make ends meet. We know there is food poverty when children during the holidays when there are no free school meals are going to bed hungry without a decent meal during the day. We know that there are parents, particularly mums, who cannot go to work because of the unaffordability of childcare. We know that we need massive investment in infrastructure after years of neglect. The best idea that our next PM has is to give tax cuts to people earning over £80,000. Genuinely, what are they on?

Joanne McCarthy: Thank you.

Supporting Victims of Hate Crime

Unmesh Desai: The sanction detection rate for hate crimes fell in the last financial year in London. What are you doing to support people who want a prosecution and what is the offer to those victims that do not want a criminal justice outcome?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. The impact of hate crime can be felt by victims and entire communities. You are right that sanction detection rates for hate crime have fallen, and that is not good enough. The backdrop to this is Government cuts to our police force, which has led to fewer officers with greater demands on them. I have discussed the need to improve sanction detection rates with the Commissioner [Commissioner of the Police of Metropolis, Cressida Dick CBE QPM], and she shares my concerns.
Part of the rationale for expanding the Online Hate Crime Hub to look at all cases of hate crime is to ensure best practice is shared in securing a conviction. We know that some victims do not want a criminal justice outcome. Rather, they want the behaviour to stop and to be able to access support. That is why we have invested heavily in increasing the support for victims. This year alone I will be investing a record £20million in victim services and will have spent over £60million on services for victims of hate crime by the end of the term. The main support comes from either the London Victim and Witness Service or the Community Alliance to Combat Hate consortia of specialist hate crime victim advocates. Those are supported to allocate a support worker who is able to provide both practical and emotional support to victims throughout the criminal justice process and beyond.
All victims of hate crime deserve to get the support they need, whether they are progressing through the criminal justice system or not, but there can be no sense that perpetrators are getting away with their crimes. That is why continuing to enhance support whilst striving to raise sanction detection rates are both important areas of work.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, in March2019 you took the decision to endorse the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia. The London Assembly recently unanimously passed a motion in support of this. The motion was first moved by NavinShah AM and seconded by myself. I am particularly proud of that, given our backgrounds, because the fight against Islamophobia, antisemitism, hate and bigotry of any type is a fight for all good, progressive, right-thinking people. I would hope the Government adopts the definition to show its commitment of tackling hate crime and the growth of far-right-wing extremism. What message do you think this would send to British Muslims and London Muslims if the Government did adopt this definition?

Sadiq Khan: You have been fighting this good fight since the 1980s. That is when we first met. One of the things that concerns me is the idea that communities have no understanding of what they face. We accept rightly that the Jewish community should be an integral part in defining what it means to be antisemitic. We accept that the LGBT+ community should be an integral part in defining what it means to be homophobic. Yet we say Muslims cannot have a say in the definition of what Islamophobia is.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group spent such a long time taking evidence and coming up with a definition rejected by the Conservative Party and this Government, accepted by nearly everyone else. There is a big issue in relation to what message the next PM wants to send about whether the Conservative Party really understands the concerns of British Muslims.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you, Mr Mayor. I am nearly out of time and so my second and last question: recently the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children made a freedom of information request to police forces. There were 10,571 race hate crimes against children recorded in 2017/18. That is 29 a day across the UK. The charity said, very sadly, that children are trying to whiten their skin to avoid hate crime.
People and children are not born racist. They learn racism. What work are you carrying out in schools and through your Deputy Mayor for Social Integration [Dr Debbie Weekes-Bernard] to combat racism and celebrate diversity?

Sadiq Khan: There are some people on this Assembly who trivialise hate crime. There are children trying to whiten their skins. Just think about that. There are children trying to whiten their skins. It is deeply upsetting. It is deeply upsetting. We are doing lots of things where we can to address this issue. I have few levers around education, but around the London curriculum we are doing stuff to promote positive role models, around history so that people can have a sense of pride in having darker skin, being black, being from an ethnic minority. It is really important. We are looking into the curriculum as well. We have to do much more.

Unmesh Desai: Finally, members of the Ibrahim Mosque in Plaistow, Newham, are watching us right now. They were the subject of a hate crime attack that the police have now recorded as a hate crime on Monday. What message can you send out to them?

Sadiq Khan: You are Londoners, and it is really important we stand shoulder to shoulder with you. We feel the ripples of fear that you feel. We feel the ripples of crime targeted towards you for no other reason but the faith you follow, your perceived Muslimness, which is part of the definition that has been rejected by the Conservatives and the Government.

Unmesh Desai: They are fantastic at doing great community inclusion work. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I will make sure the message gets emphasised again.

Autism (4)

Andrew Boff: Does the Metropolitan Police hold any information on the number of autistic people arrested in the past five years in London?

The Mayor: There is no specific field on the NSPIS Custody system to record this information.
It may appear in the response to the Risk Assessment questions “Do you have any mental health problems?” or “Do you have any medical conditions?”. However, to try to answer the question in its current format would involve several days of work. Even with this search, it would not provide accurate information - partly because autism may go undiagnosed or undeclared by detainees, but also because there are many terms for it that fall under the umbrella of ‘Autistic Spectrum Disorder’.

Collaboration

Susan Hall: Is the Mayor committed to blue light collaboration?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Yes, London’s emergency services and service personnel are essential to making our capital city a safe place to live, visit and do business. I am fully supportive of the blue-light collaboration programme in which the emergency services have set out their vision to keep London safe and ensure that collaboration is at the heart of everything they do.
One of my early actions as Mayor was to commission LordTobyHarris to undertake a review of London’s preparedness to respond to a major terrorist incident. He found that significant work had been done to ensure that all agencies can work effectively, especially since the introduction of the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles.
The cowardly attacks on our city in 2017 and the tragedy of Grenfell Tower highlighted the strength of the Joint Emergency Services response in the worst possible circumstances, and there will I am sure be an opportunity to learn lessons from the various inquests and inquiries taking place as well.
Although the legal requirement to collaborate only came into effect in 2017, I am proud that London’s emergency services have been collaborating for much longer, working together daily to help and protect the public. My team and I have been privileged to see some of these works in action. In early 2016, before I was elected Mayor, I attended Exercise Unified Response, London’s largest ever multiagency exercise, which included over 100 organisations in its design, planning and delivery. The following year, as Mayor, I attended along with other Assembly Members the blue-light collaboration day that took place in and around Lambeth Fire Station and on the Thames to see how the three emergency services and other key partners prepared together for major incidents. Last month my Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience, FionaTwycross [AM], attended an exercise led by the London Fire Brigade (LFB) to test London’s multiagency response to a corrosive substance attack.
The primary purpose, Chair, of blue-light collaboration is of course to keep people safe, but we must also think about how we can provide an efficient service. I have established a Collaboration Board to build on the existing shared service and collaboration arrangements across and beyond the Greater London Authority (GLA) Group, which includes membership from all three emergency services. The Board is taking a fresh look at Londoners’ best interests without fixating on existing structures and practices. Strong existing relationships are what make this work possible while providing the same world-class blue-light services Londoners deserve.

Susan Hall: Yes, thank you, Mr Mayor. I thoroughly agree the services work very hard together and we should be very proud of all of our blue-light services. Do you agree with me that the project in Stratford Fire Station, where there is a room that is used for the area bike paramedic team, is a prime example of blue-light collaboration?

Sadiq Khan: I do, Chair. This is the London Ambulance Service (LAS) Cycle Response Team?

Susan Hall: That is it, yes. Have you been there?

Sadiq Khan: I have not, no.

Susan Hall: It is extremely good. You nevertheless agree it is a good idea?

Sadiq Khan: I do, Chair, and I know the Assembly Member visited a number of fire stations. There are other examples in Barnet Fire Station, Heathrow Fire Station, Holloway Fire Station. There are other good examples across our city of that sort of good‑‑

Susan Hall: Yes. I have been to all the fire stations, as you well know. I am very concerned, however, that there is not the same amount of collaboration between the police and the LFB. Where it is logistically and operationally appropriate, surely we should be putting more Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) in our fire stations.

Sadiq Khan: Where possible we are doing so. For example, at Holloway Fire Station, the SNT is there, but the point raised is a really good one. If you think about the public estate - put aside which part of the public sector it is - surely it makes sense to try to share where we can public space.

Susan Hall: Absolutely.

Sadiq Khan: That is the core of your point. The same, by the way, goes for back office sharing as well. For example, it could be procurement, it could be human resources. As I said - I hope you heard in my first answer to your question - it makes sense when resources are finite as well, and so I agree with the sentiment behind your question.

Susan Hall: Agreement is breaking out here, Mr Mayor, which is most unusual.

Sadiq Khan: I do apologise. Sorry.

Steve O’Connell: Try not to do it again.

Susan Hall: I will not do again, I am sure. There are 102 fire stations out there. Really we have not done well enough, have we? I am glad you agree. If you agree, three years in, why are we not doing more of it?

Sadiq Khan: The good news is we are doing more and more. One of the things that my Chief of Staff chairs is a joint working group with all the three blue-light services, and there is an appetite. I would not want you to think that any of the commissioners are against greater collaboration. They are. Also, I meet regularly with the LAS, so I would not want you to think, just because they are not under our direct control, they are anti-working together.
Hopefully you will have seen some of the fruits of this in relation to surplus public land and housing. You will have seen in my draft London Plan the expectation is half of the homes on this surplus public land are to be genuinely affordable, and the good news is, through [The Rt Hon] JeremyHunt [MP, former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care] devolving some of the NHS’s state stuff to us, we are working with other parts of the public sector to do more. We are working with other parts of the public sector to do more. Hopefully you will see over the next period of time more examples of the fruits.
I am as frustrated as you appear to be in relation to the delay, and you are right. It makes a huge amount of common sense to work together on a whole host of issues.

Susan Hall: You are very perceptive, Mr Mayor. I am very frustrated by the delay because we seem very good in this building at having meeting upon meeting upon meeting. What we need is action here. We must look at ways to make efficiencies. This is a prime example of saving money and improving service, and therefore we should be doing far more. Do you not agree with that?

Sadiq Khan: I cannot disagree. I do agree, yes.

Susan Hall: Joy! If you agree with me, will you roll your sleeves up and make sure that this happens? We are three years in. One of your manifesto pledges, and I will quote you here, is, “As Mayor, keeping you, your family and your community safe will be my top priority”. That is not going very well at the moment. You go on to say that “real neighbourhood policing is the top priority”. I 100% agree with that. “A visible local presence. If they are local, they can be our eyes and our ears for our security services.” I 100% agree. Let us get the police officers where they need to be. Very often that is in the local fire station. Will you commit to looking at it and getting this sorted out far quicker than you are doing at the moment?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, firstly can I say I welcome the fact that the Conservatives agree with the Labour Mayor? That is some really good news. We have some progress there.

Susan Hall: Make the most of it, Mr Mayor. Make the most of it.

Sadiq Khan: The problem I had, Chair, was the mess I inherited. Had there been progress made before I became Mayor in this greater collaboration, had there been progress made in trying to work together collegiately with the LFB rather than making massive cuts to their stations, to their engines and their firefighters, had there been greater work done before I became Mayor on the fire service, the ambulance service and the police working together, I could have over something and run with it. As it is though, Chair, I inherited a mess. The first period has been spent trying to win back the trust and confidence of the police service, the fire service, the LAS, and to get people to work together and trust each other.
I hope I will see more progress going forward, and some of that will be front office that people can see, like neighbourhood teams in fire stations like Holloway Fire Station. Some of it will be back office. The public may not see it, but at least money is being saved on procurement and other issues as well. I am hoping there will be more progress made. More progress will be made quicker if the Conservatives agree with the Labour Mayor more than they currently do.

Susan Hall: Mr Mayor, you can only blame the Government and you can only blame your predecessor for a certain period of time. You have now been in place three years, and blaming other people is getting very wearing on the rest of us. You need to take a grip of what you should be doing, and one of them is most certainly looking at this particular issue to make London safer. Thank you, Chair.

Sadiq Khan: Let us get this right. Chair, let us get this right.
[Note: Jeanette Arnold OBE AM resumed the Chair at 12.00pm.]

Jennette Arnold: There was not a question there.

Sadiq Khan: “Do you not agree” was the question. Chair, the children from yesterday are watching you and they are marking you. You want a good mark.

Jennette Arnold: No, that was not the deal we had with the children.

Sadiq Khan: They are kids. They are going to mark you as well.

Jennette Arnold: No, they were not. They were marking you. Let me just tell you‑‑

Sadiq Khan: I am going to ask them to give you a bad mark. You are a bad Chair.

Jennette Arnold: You are at 6.5 out of 10 at the moment and so be careful.

Sadiq Khan: Sorry, Chair. 6.5? Seven I get. Six I get. Sorry.

Jennette Arnold: No, I am a 5 out of 10. Assembly Member O’Connell?

Modern slavery

Steve O'Connell: What progress has been made in tackling modern slavery in London?

Sadiq Khan: Modern slavery and human trafficking are horrendous crimes affecting some of the most vulnerable people in London. These complex crimes will only be solved by working closely with partners, and that is why in my Police and Crime Plan I have made clear my commitment to support partnerships that tackle modern slavery and trafficking in the capital.
I have established the London Modern Slavery Partnership Board, bringing together for the first time partners from all sectors to share intelligence, best practice and pool resources. The Board has informed my Good Work Standard and also enabled charities and partners to help improve the MPS’s intelligence on modern slavery.
We have committed £125,000 to deliver on the launch of a campaign against domestic servitude that the board has launched, and London’s Victims Commissioner has written to the Home Secretary to raise concerns about safe reporting for victims of domestic abuse. I hope her recommendations will further uncover the size of domestic servitude.
We are investing £70million in services supporting victims of violence against women and girls, and these are likely to reach victims of modern slavery. I am also pleased to be supporting the National Anti-Trafficking and Modern Slavery Network by making a financial contribution of £10,000 to the Modern Slavery Helpline.
Enforcement plays a vital role, Deputy Chairman. The Assembly Member will be aware of the recent landmark case where three gang members were convicted of human trafficking offences after they used young and vulnerable people from south London to transport and sell drugs in Hampshire. I am keen to hear the questions from the Assembly Member so I will cut my answer short.

Steve O’Connell: Very good. I am tight for time, and no doubt we will return and probably the Police and Crime Committee will return to this subject. This was the subject of a very thorough report by GLA Conservatives, Shadow City, a couple of years ago.
One question I will have, and I will bring this up at a later date, is for the first time we have seen that more men - 52% - were victims of referrals to the National Referral Mechanism in 2017. We welcome the funding for domestic abuse services and we are very passionate about those, but would you consider some sustainable funding for a service for male victims of human trafficking, who often have very little support options available after their initial referral? I would like you to take that away and consider that, Mr Mayor.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, this is a really important point. I am happy to go away and look into this. Some of the hotspots have been car washes in London. Can I take this away, Chair, and see what we can do? We have to make sure we realise that this is happening in our city in 2019. Can I look into this and come back to you on that?

Steve O’Connell: It is a massive issue and I would like to spend more time on it, but I do not have time at the moment.

Parental abuse cases in Redbridge

Keith Prince: For each of the years 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19, please provide the number of parental abuse cases in Redbridge?

The Mayor: Please see below the requested data for the financial years specified. The dataset shows the count of the number of recorded offences, where the suspect was identified as either the “Son” or “Daughter” of the victim. It should be noted that recording the relationship of the suspects to the victim, is not a mandatory field within crime reports, and therefore the data set might not be complete.
FY
Borough
Daughter
Son
Grand Total
2016/17
Redbridge
40
75
115
Havering
56
95
151
2017/18
Redbridge
34
83
117
Havering
45
102
147
2018/19
Redbridge
27
85
112
Havering
35
89
124

Planning Green Paper

Nicky Gavron: Have you had any conversations with the Government and the Minister of State for Housing, Kit Malthouse, regarding the “accelerated planning” green paper, and in particular the idea of penalties for developers who fail to build out planning permissions? What ideas would you suggest to the incoming Prime Minister to speed up construction of London’s nearly 300,000 unbuilt homes?

Sadiq Khan: London’s unbuilt housing pipeline is a result of the success of local planning authorities in producing the planning permission London needs. Indeed, London’s current housing pipeline includes enough permissions to meet London’s housing targets for the next four and a half years. It is clear the planning system itself is not the problem and we would warn against any tinkering that could undermine the role of planning departments in local communities in shaping sustainable development. Any hope that changes to the planning system of this nature could get more spades in the ground are, frankly, misconceived. What is needed to accelerate housing delivery is incentives that reward developers for rapid delivery and penalises developers who sit on their hands. My draft London Plan provides strong incentives for developers to meet the threshold level of affordable housing, 35% in most cases, and to complete permitted schemes in a reasonable timeframe. This has shown early signs of success and I recommend the Government follow our lead.
I have continually called for a stronger role for City Hall and borough councils to intervene in stalled development sites by exercising “use it or lose it” powers. This would encourage developers to progress with development and allow the public sector to take control of mothballed development sites, releasing them for development by those who will build. Government must also recognise that to build new homes on the scale we need, we must tackle the market absorption conundrum head on. The bottom line is that to build more homes more quickly, we need to build far more social rented and other affordable homes. To do that, the Government must recognise the need for much greater levels of investment in affordable housing and that the Affordable Homes Programme settlement falls far short of what London really needs.

Nicky Gavron: Thank you for that. The framing of the Green Paper that you are referring to, it is called “accelerated planning” and I think it is the wrong kind of framing. I think what it is going to lead to is probably what we do not want it to lead to; it smacks of more cuts, more erosion and marginalisation in the planning system and more deregulation. You gave a very good example of accelerated planning when you mentioned the threshold approach, which JamesMurray [Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development] told us at the Housing Committee a couple of weeks ago was in fact now producing many, many more applications going through the planning system with 35% affordable housing than those that did not meet the threshold. Should the Government not be taking up ideas like that, and other ideas, ideas which actually do not compromise standards, which do increase affordable housing, rather than deregulation? Presumably you are going to be passing on these examples to the next PM and to KitMalthouse [Minister of State for Housing], who is putting forward the accelerated planning paper?

Sadiq Khan: Accelerated planning cannot cause a cut. We are going to make sure that the Government acts upon those permissions that have been granted but are not being built. In fact, the previous Mayor [The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP] - who is probably going to be the next PM - was in favour of “use it or lose it”. He was an advocate for this when he was the Mayor and I am hoping that now he is likely to be the PM, he will remember his advocacy for that policy and work with us to address this issue. You are absolutely right that we cannot allow this to lead to corners being cut. What we have to do is make sure we speed up homes being built, not being permissions being granted, but homes being built as well.

Nicky Gavron: Absolutely. Also your predecessor commissioned from Molior a report in 2012, which he updated in 2014, called Barriers to Housing Delivery. It has occurred to me that five years on, it might be a good idea - I do not know if you have the resources to do this - to commission perhaps another report, because the housing market has changed now. You have brought in a lot of new initiatives. There is also the construction crisis, which has moved on, the skills situation is different, and of course there is Brexit. Would that be something you might consider?

Sadiq Khan: On that, the good news is the current Chancellor has commissioned OliverLetwin[MP] to do a piece in relation to how we can speed up homes being built. The Letwin report is actually very good. A lot of it we fed into, so I think there is enough with our expertise in City Hall. If it is BorisJohnson[MP], with his experience as the Mayor, the Letwin review and the work we have done in my first three years as the Mayor, there is enough there to be getting on with. What I would hope the new PM would do is realise that actually we have got to make sure the right sorts of homes are built. What we do not want is luxury penthouses left empty. What we do not want is a definition of affordable homes where homes cost £500,000 or 80% of market value. We need proper, genuinely affordable homes. That means more investment from the Government as well.

River crossings and transport infrastructure

Caroline Pidgeon: What are your next steps to deliver your proposed Silvertown Tunnel river crossing?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. The Silvertown Tunnel is vital to address the current situation at the Blackwall Tunnel. The regular congestion here results in some of the worst air quality in London. Delivering this scheme will improve our environment.
TfL is committed to ensuring that the project is delivered safely and with minimal impact to the environment and local residents. The majority of construction materials will be transported by river to reduce congestion and related emissions. Pocket parks and landscaping will improve the urban realm of the local area. The new crossing will also provide a range of education and employment opportunities for local residents, including apprenticeships, with an aim of 25% of the construction workforce coming from the local area.
TfL recently announced the River Links Consortium as the preferred bidder to take forward the design, build, finance and maintain contract. TfL and River Links are finalising the documents to allow the contract to be awarded at the end of the summer [2019]. River Links is beginning to plan the works in detail and TfL has begun surveys in the area to ensure that construction can start later this year [2019]. Once the contract is awarded, TfL and River Links will continue developing the designs and detailed plans to deliver the scheme. Developing a community engagement plan to ensure that the local community remains involved throughout will be an important part of this work.
Closer to the time of the tunnel opening, TfL would determine the user charges through undertaking further modelling and monitoring to manage demand and ensure the scheme delivers on its environmental and traffic commitments. TfL will also provide concessions to low-income local residents and funding for local businesses to help mitigate the impacts of the new charging regime.
Detailed proposals for new cross-river cycle facilities will be developed and agreed with local boroughs, and plans are already in place for the scheme to unlock development and to improve conditions for walking and cycling on both sides of the river. This much-needed new river crossing will help improve the local environment and give east London residents and businesses better public transport and access to jobs and services.

Caroline Pidgeon: In January of this year [2019], MrMayor, you stated that London’s air pollution has triggered a public health emergency. You have also said that cleaning up London’s toxic air is now an issue of life and death. I absolutely agree with you and I support your decision to introduce the ULEZ. That is a really bold policy.
How will your decision to build a new road tunnel specifically reduce carbon and air pollution?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am sure the AssemblyMember will accept that the current problem is contributing towards the climate emergency. The current problem is contributing towards the air in our city being a killer. Why do I say that? The only way to get across the river in that part of London is through the Blackwall Tunnel. In one year alone, it was closed 700 times. Even when it is open, there are massive traffic jams, massive delays and massive congestion, contributing to additional particulate matters and additional nitrogen dioxide.
Having the Silvertown Tunnel with a lane reserved for buses will mean, rather than having one unreliable single-decker bus going across the river whenever the Blackwall Tunnel is working, we will have double-decker buses, guaranteed 37 in an hour or from day one 20 in an hour, leading to more public transport from one side of the river to the other, but also cyclists and pedestrians being able to go from one side of the river to the other. The only option now is to drive across. There will be fewer closures of the Blackwall Tunnel, fewer people receiving bad quality air because of traffic jams and less gridlock. Because both tunnels will have user charges, in fact, it will not lead to an increase in vehicles crossing the river from the Blackwall Tunnel and Silvertown Tunnel but will lead to those that are using it going across quickly rather than traffic jams leading to poor-quality air.

Caroline Pidgeon: Can you specifically explain how you believe building this road tunnel will have no damaging impact whatsoever on pollution levels?

Sadiq Khan: These are some of the things that were looked into when it came to the public inspectorate, six months’ worth of work last year [2018], and were also looked into by the development consent order work undertaken, and were also looked into by the Department for Transport when it asked TfL to delay issuing this, which led to a seven-month delay. All the things have been explored.
On top of that, TfL will continue to monitor this as we go forward. One of the things I have said in my answer to your original question is that when it comes to setting the user charge, when it comes to deciding what sort of vehicles will be affected by the user charge, when it comes to deciding what parts of the day the user charge will have to be paid, those are some of the things we can look into in relation to air quality now versus air quality when the tunnel eventually opens.

Caroline Pidgeon: The signalling on the Piccadilly line needs to be upgraded. The Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham and beyond is needed. Why have you chosen to prioritise spending £1billion on this road tunnel?

Sadiq Khan: Can I just check, Chair: are the Liberal Democrats now suggesting that we use a private financial initiative (PFI) model for the Piccadilly line?

Caroline Pidgeon: It is a form of borrowing and I am asking you why you are choosing to go ahead with this project over other investment in public transport.

Sadiq Khan: Let us be clear, Chair. The Liberal Democrats are giving it away. They have given it away. What we are doing with the Silvertown Tunnel is not using funding from TfL budgets to pay for the tunnel to be designed, built, financed or maintained, but in agreement with the Treasury we are using a model to make sure this can be built and the user charges will be used to pay for the tunnel.
If the Liberal Democrats are now suggesting, as they did in Government, that we use PFI for the Piccadilly line or for other public transport, I disagree. For the Piccadilly line, for the Bakerloo extension and for the other improvements that need to be undertaken, we need to make sure we work with the Government to have different funding methods there. When I meet the new Chancellor, whenever he or she is appointed by the new PM, one of the things I will be lobbying them about is that the National Infrastructure Commission report says that the country needs London to have better infrastructure and that means some contribution from central Government.

Caroline Pidgeon: I am afraid the people of London, MrMayor, will remember you not for transforming public transport and not for cleaning up our air, but for building a huge polluting road under the Thames that does neither. Thank you very much.

Sadiq Khan: Yes, and Londoners will remember the Liberal Democrats for being part of the Coalition Government that made massive cuts in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015‑‑

Caroline Pidgeon: I always know I have hit the nail on the head when you mention the Coalition, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: Some of the Liberal Democrats have selective amnesia. Londoners do not, though.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you. Let us move on to the next question in the name of AssemblyMemberKurten on President Trump’s visit.

Taxi Age Limit

Keith Prince: Have you and TfL made a final decision on whether or not to reduce the taxi age limit to twelve years?

Sadiq Khan: TfL is currently reviewing the responses from the consultation and preparing a consultation report which we published, alongside their final decision later this summer. The health impacts of air pollution are unacceptable. Thousands of premature deaths, stunted lungs in our children and increased risk of stroke and dementia in the old. These impacts fall unequally, with those living in deprived areas exposed to around a quarter more pollution. I refuse to be a Mayor that ignores this crisis.
I have taken decisive action to tackle London’s air quality crisis and this involves cleaning up all the vehicles on London’s roads. While I welcome the efforts the taxi trade has already taken to reduce its emissions from this year, taxis will be the largest source of road transport emissions in central London. They will contribute over 20% of nitrogen dioxide and nitrogen oxide (NOx) road transport emissions. Indeed, due to improvements across the rest of the vehicle fleet, TfL estimates this figure will be more than 30% by 2020.
There are legal limits for concentrations of pollutants in outdoor air. These have been put in place to protect people’s health. If we are to achieve these legal standards as quickly as possible, as I want to do and as I am legally required to do, then we must reduce NOx emissions from taxis in central London by 65% by 2025 compared to 2013 levels.
After considering and modelling the air quality impacts of a range of options to address taxi emissions, TfL considered that a phased reduction of the taxi age limit to 12 years by 2022 would be needed to deliver the reduction in taxi emissions required to achieve compliance by 2025. These proposals were subject to a ten‑week public consultation earlier this year which received more than 5,000 responses.

Tony Arbour: Assembly Member Prince?

Keith Prince: Thank you, Mr Mayor. First off, as an East Ender, can I welcome the progress that you are making on the Silvertown Tunnel? Although we do not quite agree on the tolling, I think in principle you are absolutely right around the buses and pushbikes being able to go through the tunnel, which is something that cannot be done using the current tunnel. Credit where it is due.
Secondly, can you just answer the question, though? Has the decision been made yet on the 12 years or is it still under consideration?

Sadiq Khan: It is still being considered and we hope to have an outcome this summer [2019]. I am using seasons now rather than months for reasons that my advisor told me is sensible to do.

Keith Prince: It is very sensible to use seasons in your case, Mr Mayor. Can I just ask you? Do you think it is appropriate, therefore, Mr Mayor, that before you have made the decision - and I think it is your decision to be made - a member of the TfL staff back in April [2019], whilst speaking to a member of the United Private Hire Drivers, told them not to worry about private hire vehicles (PHVs) having to pay the Congestion Charge because the taxis are going to get 12 years? A couple of things there, Mr Mayor. One, do you think it is appropriate that a member of TfL staff should be pre-empting your decision? Secondly, is it quid pro quo because if you do a bad thing to the PHV, i.e. charging Congestion Charge, you then have to do a bad thing to the taxi trade?

Sadiq Khan: With the normal caveats, just on what you have told me, that would be inappropriate, but I do not have the context or the accuracy. No, it is not tit-for-tat. It is not these lot versus this lot. It is trying to make sure we address the air quality crisis.
The Congestion Charge in relation to PHVs is more congestion than air quality but there is a clear link. You will know, though, the legal requirements there are upon us to address the issue of air quality. With the usual caveats about accuracy and stuff, no, it would not be appropriate.

Keith Prince: No, that is fine. I personally think it is very inappropriate and I am glad that we agree. An awful chance of us agreeing quite a lot.
I would like to ask you another question. I believe that your current scheme of reducing the lifetime expectancy down to 12 years saves some 8,000 kilograms of NOx over a period of time. I was approached yesterday by the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association (LTDA), who I am sure you are familiar with. It has a proposal that it would like to put to you which would save 12,000 rather than 8,000 over the same period. Would you be happy to meet with them and me just to go through that, Mr Mayor?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am not sure if this is the same idea put to me by the LTDA in a letter it wrote to me about retrofitting. I have asked TfL to look into all the ideas that we receive, including the ones from LTDA. My understanding is TfL is exploring the alternative options that LTDA has suggested to me. It wrote to me, and TfL will be responding in due course.

Keith Prince: You know I do not often ask this of you, and hopefully we never waste our time when we do. Because it is so important, because there are a lot of financial implications around reducing the lifespan down to 12 years, would you be prepared to meet with me and the LTDA to look at this, Mr Mayor?

Sadiq Khan: I do not think a meeting is required, because the issue is the technical data that the LTDA is relying upon in relation to its suggestion. The more important thing is not meeting the LTDA. I saw it last week actually in relation to the electric vehicle charging point, the announcement I made with the delivery plan. What is more important is TfL explores what has been suggested by it, and as I understand it, it is doing that now.

Keith Prince: How can we be assured that that information gets to you, Mr Mayor?

Sadiq Khan: Because I have asked for it. They are letters to me, and it is for me to respond to the LTDA, and I am waiting for the information from my team before I respond to the LTDA.

Keith Prince: Would you, therefore, Mr Mayor, commit that before you make the final decision on reducing the taxi lifespan to 12 years, if you are not convinced by the arguments that are being put to you by officers, that you would agree to a meeting before you make‑‑

Sadiq Khan: Chair, if I am not convinced by the arguments put to me by the officers, that means that we will not be reducing the life expectancy from 15 years to 12 years of the taxis. It is a genuine consultation. It is what it says on the tin. There will be a detailed integrated impact assessment - that is being completed - to support the consultation. TfL - and I am the Chair of TfL - will decide whether to proceed with the proposals. It is a genuine consultation.

Keith Prince: The question, Mr Mayor - I will just rephrase it slightly - was around if you are not convinced by the LTDA’s argument around not reducing the 12 years, before you do reduce it would you agree just to allow them to put the argument directly to you?

Sadiq Khan: I would more than happily agree with them to meet the experts in TfL. I am not an engineer, so it is important for them to meet the engineers at TfL to persuade them. This is a hypothetical question, Chairman, based on a number of premises. The hypothetical question is, if the TfL experts disagree with the submissions made by the LTDA, would I agree to meet with the LTDA? The answer is in those scenarios I would be very happy for the TfL experts to meet with the LTDA experts to see if they can agree on the conclusions that have been asserted by the LTDA.

Keith Prince: Thank you. One very quick last question, Mr Mayor. You have your Car-Free Day coming up I believe. Will buses and black cabs be running on that day?

Sadiq Khan: The World Car-Free Day on 22September [2019] is a voluntary initiative, so it is councils agreeing to do various things across the city. Nineteen councils have already signed up to do various things. I am hoping more will sign up. That includes within central London 20 kilometres that will be completely car-free. City of London is our biggest council involved there. There will be play streets across various boroughs in London where side roads will essentially be closed and children and families will be playing on those streets. In some streets that will mean no taxis and no cars, no buses, actually very few streets across London.
What I am hoping is that we can demonstrate that it is possible to have a day when there is less reliance on cars in parts of London, but it is not the whole of London, and it is a voluntary initiative with councils working with us.

Keith Prince: I am just conscious of time, Mr Mayor. Would you be kind enough to supply the information as to where the buses and the taxis will or will not be going?

Sadiq Khan: It is always evolving. What I am happy to do is to provide you with information as to what has been agreed so far, but I am hoping more councils sign up. It was 16 last week. It is 19 this week. There could be more by 22September.

Keith Prince: Thank you.

Parental abuse cases in Havering

Keith Prince: For each of the years 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19, please provide the number of parental abuse cases in Havering?

The Mayor: Please see my response to Mayor's Question 2019/12303.

Clean Air Day

Florence Eshalomi: Today is World Clean Air Day, and Londoners across the city are benefiting from your programmes, including the ULEZ, Low Emission Bus Zones and Low Emission Neighbourhoods. What lessons will you be taking forward to continue this success?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Air pollution in our city is leading to thousands of premature deaths, stunted lungs in our children and increased risk of stroke and dementia in the old. It is also a social justice issue as those living in deprived parts of our city are being exposed to around a quarter more pollution.
This is unacceptable. That is why we have introduced the boldest plans to tackle air pollution of any major city in the world. These were opposed by the Conservatives.
On Clean Air Day, I am pleased to report that we are delivering real improvements to the air Londoners are breathing. Last week I announced funding for a further four Low Emission Neighbourhoods to tackle air pollution hotspots, taking the total to 15, as well as a host of other projects. In April [2019] I introduced the world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in central London. In just the first month in operation, the ULEZ resulted in 74% of vehicles meeting the required standards. We have also seen already a 20% reduction in concentrations of nitrogen dioxide since February2017. Had we listened to the Conservatives this would not have happened.
The lesson we are learning is that with strong leadership and the right policies, we can make a real difference to Londoners’ lives. Working in partnership with Londoners, businesses and boroughs across London is also proving vital to delivering our air pollution initiatives and so I intend to continue with this approach over the coming months and years.
I will also continue to call on the Government to learn from our experience in London and to match our ambition. It must not only commit to passing new clean air legislation so that we can tackle all sources of air pollution in London, but also introduce a new national vehicle scrappage scheme to take the most polluting vehicles off our streets now.

Florence Eshalomi: Thank you, MrMayor. Those figures are really good. Over the last few years we have seen air quality come up the agenda and this is something that affects all of us regardless of background.
One of the things that is really good is the scrappage scheme, but unfortunately a number of residents that I represent in Lambeth and Southwark have raised concerns about the cost of switching to electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles. If we are honest, they are still very expensive, especially for those families on low incomes.
What more can you do to make sure we are getting the right level of scrappage for those families who do want to switch their cars and make sure that they are not contributing to that toxic air?

Sadiq Khan: Thanks for your question. You are right to make sure that you speak on behalf of those low-income families, small businesses and charities that want to do the right thing.
We from City Hall, in the absence of Government funding, have contributed £23million to a scrappage scheme for the smallest businesses and charities. One of the points made to me was that sole traders were not eligible originally. We have changed that to make them eligible for this scheme.
The second thing we are working on is a scrappage scheme of £25million for low-income families. We are looking at how we can make it easier for the poorest families to get access to this.
Just to remind - through you - Londoners, to be ULEZ compliant, your car needs to be Euro 6 if it is diesel or Euro 4 if it is petrol. That does not mean necessarily that you have to move to electric, although we would like you to, and so we are giving carrots and some sticks to do so with the ULEZ. We want to encourage, where possible, people to walk, cycle and use public transport or, when they need to use a vehicle, to use an electric or hydrogen vehicle.
What we are doing, as I announced last week with ShirleyRodrigues, Deputy Mayor for Energy and Environment, is improving the infrastructure to make it easier for people to access charging points.

Florence Eshalomi: Great. Thank you. I will leave it there, MrMayor.

Preventing Secondary School Exclusions

Jennette Arnold: The London Assembly Education panel report and the Government Timpson review into exclusions both highlighted early interventions in support to prevent school exclusions. How can you work with schools and other services to ensure that all young people who need it are able to access this support?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Deputy Chairman. The Assembly report rightly highlighted the increase in the number of students being excluded and the correlation with a lack of early intervention, especially support for students with complex needs.
In March[2019] I called on the PM to reverse the damaging cuts to early intervention services and give schools the resources they need to deliver effective interventions and support those at risk of exclusion. Teams in City Hall, including the Violence Reduction Unit, continue to work closely with schools, councils, health, police and community organisations to identify the challenges they are facing. The next steps include running a series of consultation and practice-sharing events. We will be using this to help shape how better local collaboration could work in practice and to capture good examples of the evidence-informed programmes that we know exist. We also want to draw on effective models outside of London, such as Glasgow.
This work will inform our response to the recent [Edward]Timpson review, which reported last month [May 2019]. I was pleased to see the role of local authorities in exclusions and the importance of alternative provision highlighted in the review. We are also supporting children at risk of exclusion through my £45million Young Londoners Fund. Last year [2018] I invested £20.5million of this in over 170 projects that will reach 63,000 young people. The funding is supportive of a number of alternative providers such as Wac Arts College’s Stay Safe Project, which offers educational and positive activities to young people, and through Team London, HeadStart Action, which gives young Londoners aged 14 to 18 living in disadvantaged areas access to opportunities, helping them to take part in employability and careers workshops with corporate partners and to secure work experience. The European Social Fund (ESF) programme will invest £8million to support young people at risk of leaving school or college, and a further £3million of ESF money will fund a project to support young people who are vulnerable to involvement in gangs.
We are doing all we can from City Hall. However, I do remain concerned by the Government’s response, which fails to adequately reflect the recommendations from its own review.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you so much, and I am sure, like me, you are following the promises that are being made, and this matter has been discussed by a number of the candidates. It will be interesting to see at the end of the day whether or not we can take this forward with Government. Thank you.

Honesty in Politics

Gareth Bacon: Do you believe honesty is important in politics?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Honesty is important in politics. We should all be incredibly concerned by the direction of political debate in our country. We recently held a state visit for PresidentTrump, a man who is known for deliberately and repeatedly lying to the public and then declaring ‘fake news’ every time he is confronted with the facts. Sadly, it appears that some politicians in Britain are trying to copy these methods, including key frontrunners to be the next leader of the Conservative Party and therefore PM of our country. This is extremely worrying, as it risks eroding even further the level of public trust in our national politics.
There is no doubt that the biggest lies and mistruths told to the British public in recent years were during the European Union (EU) referendum campaign in 2016, from the lie that if we leave the EU the NHS will get £300million more per week, to the misleading statement that Turkey would join the EU. These falsehoods and many others were repeatedly voiced by BorisJohnson [MP], MichaelGove [MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] and other senior members of the Conservative Party. I am sure all Assembly Members would agree that this was both wrong and deeply irresponsible.
I am pleased that at City Hall we are taking a different approach, delivering change for our city whilst being honest with Londoners. We said we would make tackling air pollution and climate change a key priority and we are now taking the boldest action of any city in the world. This includes the introduction of the world-leading ULEZ this year [2019] and declaring a climate emergency in London.
We said to Londoners that it would be impossible to solve the housing crisis overnight, but we are now laying the foundations to fix the mess we inherited. This includes starting to build more council homes last year [2018/19] than in any year since 1984, giving residents and tenants the right to vote on estate regeneration plans, and doubling our homelessness outreach teams.
We said we would make transport more affordable for millions of Londoners. We have made sure that TfL fares have been frozen for the third year running and we have introduced the unlimited Hopper bus fare.
We said we would implement a long-term public health approach to tackle violent crime and that is exactly what we are doing with England’s first Violence Reduction Unit, the £45million Young Londoners Fund, which is creating opportunities for young Londoners to fulfil their potential, and our City Hall-funded Violent Crime Task Force.
I could go on but I want to give the AssemblyMember a chance to respond.

Jennette Arnold: AssemblyMemberBacon?

Gareth Bacon: Thank you, Chair. That was a good attempt at guessing where I was going to go with my supplementary, MrMayor, but you were not quite on the right track.
On 2June [2019] you gave an interview to NiallPaterson at Sky News. He asked you, “To what extent then is it a matter of personal regret to you that London is less safe than when you took the job?” You responded, “It is not less safe. That is the first thing”, and then you talked about the various things that you were doing. I thought, “That is interesting”, and so I had a look at the Metropolitan Police Service’s (MPS) statistics. In 2015/16, for example, there were 21,361 robberies recorded. Last year there were 35,216, which is an increase of 65%.
In that light, MrMayor, do you think that stating that London is not less safe than when you took over was an honest thing to say?

Sadiq Khan: I do and‑‑

Gareth Bacon: You do? That is extraordinary.

Sadiq Khan: I am very happy to have a discussion on the definition of robbery, actually, but it depends which metrics you use to measure safety. You measure with metrics, Chair, in relation to‑‑

Gareth Bacon: Let us give you another one, then, MrMayor‑‑

Sadiq Khan: Hold on, Chair‑‑

Jennette Arnold: No. Have you finished your answer to the question?

Sadiq Khan: I have not, Chair. I have not. We all want to be JeremyPaxman [broadcaster]. Let me answer the question.
It depends which metrics you use to measure safety. It could be robbery. It could be‑‑

Gareth Bacon: These are MPS statistics, MrMayor, that are published and available online.

Jennette Arnold: Have you finished the answer, MrMayor?

Sadiq Khan: I am quite clear that, as far as London is concerned, we are a safe city. Of course I am concerned about any incident of personal injury to a Londoner. We are doing what we can, though, to keep our city safe.

Gareth Bacon: OK. I have another statistic for you, then, which is an MPS statistic. In 2015/16, there were 9,704 recorded knife crimes and last year there were 15,003, which is an increase of 55%.
Do you think that stating that London is not less safe than when you took over was an honest thing to say?

Sadiq Khan: We are safer. I will give you one example where you can measure success in relation to the progress we are making to deal with terrorism. We are making big progress there‑‑

Gareth Bacon: I did not ask about terrorism.

Sadiq Khan: ‑‑ and also in relation to homicides and in relation to under-25s who are injured by knife crime. It depends which metrics you use. We can go around in circles in relation to this. There are some metrics where we are doing less well than before I became Mayor and some metrics where we are doing better.
There is also the context nationally and internationally. For example, you can look at what is happening‑‑

Jennette Arnold: All right‑‑

Gareth Bacon: Sorry, I am not asking about national crime. I am asking about crime in London, which the Mayor is responsible for dealing with. Another statistic, MrMayor: in 2015/16 there were 1,804 gun crimes, according to the MPS, and last year there were 2,342, which is an increase of 30%.
Again, do you think that saying that London is not less safe now than when you took over was an honest thing to say?

Sadiq Khan: I do.

Gareth Bacon: You do? Gun crime is up, robbery is up, knife crime is up, rape is up, taking motor vehicle offences are up, residential burglary is up, knife crime with injury is up and knife crime with injury and robbery is up, and you think honestly that London is more safe now than when you took over as Mayor of London?

Sadiq Khan: I do.

Gareth Bacon: That is absolutely extraordinary. Thank you very much.

Brexit deadline

Andrew Dismore: Are Londoners at risk of seeing another no-deal panic in October given that the Government is no closer to securing a deal with the EU?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. A no-deal outcome will be dreadful for London and disastrous for the country. Unfortunately, it is looking more likely because the Conservative Party leadership contest is fast becoming a race to see who can take the most extreme position on Brexit. Our next PM is not being chosen by the country as a whole but by a tiny and deeply unrepresentative group of 100,000 or so Party members.
Regardless of who is selected, the new PM will face the same problems as their predecessor: a Parliament that is deadlocked and a withdrawal agreement that the EU has made clear is not up for negotiation. I fear the Government is ignoring DonaldTusk’s [President of the European Council] friendly advice to us, which is not to waste this time.
In the first six weeks of the current extension, the PM continued to push exactly the same deal Parliament rejected three times. Then she resigned, and the Government will have already squandered half of the extra time the EU gave us by the time the next Conservative leader steps into Downing Street. Even if they want to cut a new deal, they will not have enough time to negotiate one. They will end up in exactly the same place as before, no deal, or asking the EU for a third extension to which there is no guarantee it will consent.
The most sensible course of action would be to withdraw Article50 immediately. It is now more obvious than ever that Article50 should not have been triggered before the Government had a proper plan in place and was an act of political expedience which has damaged the national interest. If the new PM’s Government tries to leave without a deal, I hope that enough MPs would support a vote of no confidence to allow the country to have its say through a general election. The British people must get the final say on Brexit one way or another.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you for that response. As you indicated, I think the candidates for the Conservative Party leadership and PM have all been saying, “We will renegotiate another deal”, but the EU has stated time and again it will not reopen the agreement. Do you agree that the future PM, whichever of the remaining sorry bunch it is, must stop pulling the wool over their party members’ eyes by pandering to their xenophobic prejudices and tell the truth for once? You have rightly said that local government as well as businesses need urgent clarity, and what will happen once the UK leaves the EU so they can put effective continuity plans in place? What are businesses supposed to do when frontrunner BorisJohnson’s approach to businesses concerns about the hard Brexit he wants is to say, “Eff business”, as he did in June last year [2018] to the event marking the Queen’s official birthday?

Sadiq Khan: Quite, and this is one of the many, many questions that the frontrunner needs to answer, and you can see why he has been hidden away and not opened himself up to scrutiny. One of the worst things for not just businesses but for this generation and the next generation and the NHS construction is a no-deal Brexit. It would be catastrophic for our country. Even MichaelGove [Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] has admitted now that PM [Theresa]May prematurely served notice to quit on Article50. She should have had a plan in place before she served the Article50 notice.
The sensible course of action is to withdraw Article50. Give us time to consider what the options are. If the new PM wants to leave the EU - and he clearly will want to - he can devise a plan to do so sensibly and then, if need be, reserve Article50. Clearly I would like a general election for the British public to get a say for the first time on the deal that has been negotiated with the option of remaining in the EU.

Andrew Dismore: The next PM, as we have discussed, could be frontrunner BorisJohnson, who previously supported remaining in the EU in the single market, even calling those who opposed Turkey’s accession to the EU “foolish”, maybe because of his own Turkish ancestry. He has switched to this careerist opportunism when there was a chance to become leader of the Conservative Party, with his lies about Turkey, about £350million a week to the NHS and his dismissive attitude to business. Do you agree that Londoners cannot trust BorisJohnson after he abandoned their best interests to pursue his own prime ministerial ambitions above all other considerations? He has said at his launch party he wanted to do to the country what he did to London. What do you think of that?

Jennette Arnold: Mr Mayor, can you go to a specific answer about London? Let me read the question. “Are Londoners at risk of seeing another no-deal panic in October given that the Government is no closer to securing a deal with the EU?” That is the topic of the question.

Tony Arbour: Allegedly.

Sadiq Khan: London needs a PM who understands the needs of our city and our country. Any PM who is going to pursue a no-deal Brexit clearly does not understand the needs of our city or our country.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you. Let us move to the next question in the name of Assembly Member Bacon, and it is MD2441. Perhaps you will explain what that is in your answer.

Grenfell Tower fire

Andrew Dismore: In her leaving speech, the Prime Minister reiterated her claim that nothing like the Grenfell Tower fire must happen again. Yet two years on, no new legislation has been brought forward to reform fire safety, thousands of Londoners are still living in blocks with flammable cladding, and 17 households affected by the Grenfell fire still have yet to find permanent homes. Do you agree that whoever emerges from the scrum to become the next Conservative Leader and the next Prime Minister, their priority must be to fix finally the issues brought to light by the Grenfell Tower and to provide justice to those affected?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Last week I joined the local community to mark the second anniversary since the tragedy of the Grenfell fire at a moving church service and vigil to remember the victims and their families.
A few days before the second anniversary, I wrote to the PM, saying that the Government’s failure to deliver on the pledges made following the fire had been nothing short of shameful. It is simply unacceptable that two years on 17 families whose homes were destroyed are still living in temporary or emergency accommodation. The community continues to feel ignored and neglected, having to fight for every piece of support from the Council, from receiving legal advice to accessing mental services and simply understanding their rights. What is more, our failed building regulation system remains largely unchanged and the testing programme of existing buildings has been far too slow. Thousands of people across the country are living in homes with unsafe cladding.
The Government’s response to the consultation on the Social Housing Green Paper, lauded by the Secretary of State as a “landmark opportunity for major reform”, has still not been published. The fire at Samuel Garside [House] in Barking last week shows that the risk of flammable materials is not limited to high-rise buildings. The Government’s combustible material ban after Grenfell applies only to buildings over 18 metres and so it is likely the combustible material at Samuel Garside could still be used in new low- and mid-rise buildings. This shows just how far the reforms have fallen short of what is needed.
In my letter, I urged the PM to use her remaining time in office to increase support for the Grenfell community, deliver meaningful reforms to building regulations, speed up remediation of existing buildings, and commit to installing sprinklers in high-rise blocks. I also urged her to implement national reforms to strengthen tenants’ voices that could have helped prevent this tragedy from happening in the first place. Whoever replaces TheresaMay as PM must make it a priority to finally act on the issues that affect the Grenfell community and people across the country. We owe it to the 72 people who lost their lives at Grenfell Tower, their families, friends and all those impacted by what happened two years ago.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you for that answer. I remind you - not that it is necessary - that the Hackitt Review [Dame Judith Hackitt, Building a Safer Future: Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, 2018] reported a year ago, but implementation has only just begun and the legislation is not expected until 2021. Whilst the Government introduced a temporary ban on flammable cladding on new residential buildings over 80 metres, nothing was said about other tall buildings such as the flats in Barking that you mentioned, which went up like a torch. Fire testing of a wide variety of other types of cladding did not begin until 30April this year [2019] and even then does not include fire fumes and smoke, which are the killers. In June2018 the Government announced a joint inspection task force to speed up the private sector remediation, but it is still not operational. It took until a month ago for the Government to allocate some funds for private sector remediation, but bids cannot even be made until July [2019], let alone work commenced. As of May this year [2019], there are more private sector residential buildings with no remediation plans in place compared to the number that have been fixed, including over 100 in London. The public inquiry and the police investigation are months behind. The sorry earlier history of ignored warnings and Coroner’s recommendations is appalling, as set out in the comprehensive article in the current edition of Inside Housing magazine.
Would you agree that the list of late or non-activity by this Brexit-obsessed Conservative Government is little more than an insult to the memory of the 72 victims of the fire, to the survivors of the local community and to the 4,600 social then 10,600 private-sector London families still living in fear in blocks with dangerous cladding on them?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. Your question is actually an indictment of the neglect this Government has shown over the last two years. Put aside the neglect before the Grenfell Tower fire. The delay is, frankly, incredible. The Government could have introduced interim measures. It failed to do so. You are right to remind us that any progress may not happen until 2021 at the soonest in relation to legislation. We have a big issue in relation to aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding in social housing and ACM cladding in private housing, but there are other combustible materials that are not ACM cladding. You are right to remind us in relation to those buildings below 18 metres and we saw what happened in Barking last week. There is a big concern around new buildings that could be being built with combustible cladding. That is not being addressed because of the Government’s delay. Your question you should circulate as an indictment on this Government’s track record over the last two years and before.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you. What do you think the prospects are for justice for Grenfell if former Mayor BorisJohnson were to become PM? This is a man who broke his election promise not to cut the Fire Brigade in the 2014 Brigade cuts, axing ten fire stations, 14 fire engines and 553 firefighter posts. When I challenged him about it when he was sitting where you are, he simply replied, “Get stuffed”. When I challenged him about the 26October2015 Camden Road fatal fire, when the first fire engine took 30 minutes to get there because he closed Belsize Fire Station and no fewer than 10% of London’s fire stations were off the run, he replied, “You are talking total [dot dot]”. Another of his broken promises after the 2014 cuts was that there would be no more cuts, but he axed a further 13 fire engines in 2015/16. Amongst the worst of all, Brian Coleman, former Assembly Member and then Chairman of the [London] Fire [and Emergency] Authority, exposed his use of four-letter foul language about the families bereaved in the 7/7 [2005] terrorist attacks, hardly compassionate conservatism, as revealed in the Sunday Mirror this last week.
Do you consider any of the Conservative leadership contenders, especially frontrunner BorisJohnson, will deliver justice for Grenfell?

Jennette Arnold: AssemblyMemberDismore, thank you for removing the prop. Thank you.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, all I would say is this. Whoever the PM is, he is our PM and he will be the PM for the families, the victims and the survivors affected by Grenfell Tower. It is really important that he looks after the most vulnerable and uses that as criteria for success.
The evidence I have seen from the track record of the favourite to be the next PM concerns me. Also, the idea that you can hide from your record by failing to turn up to broadcast hustings and failing to give yourself scrutiny will not wash once you become the PM. His record will come out.
The key thing is whether he has learned from that. I hope he has, genuinely, as somebody who loves the city and wants a PM to do the best for our country and our city. We will have to wait and see.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you.